Timothy Petty v. Enterprise FM Trust et al.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 20, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-01849
StatusUnknown

This text of Timothy Petty v. Enterprise FM Trust et al. (Timothy Petty v. Enterprise FM Trust et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Timothy Petty v. Enterprise FM Trust et al., (E.D. La. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TIMOTHY PETTY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-1849

ENTERPRISE FM TRUST ET AL. SECTION "G" (3)

ORDER AND REASONS

Defendants, Enterprise FM Trust, Bureau Veritas North America, and Ivan Bodden (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint (R. Doc. 11). No opposition was filed. Having considered Defendants’ memorandum, the record, and the applicable law, the Court issues this Order and Reasons granting the motion. I. Background Plaintiff filed the instant action in state court on July 10, 2025.1 On September 9, 2025, Plaintiff removed the matter to federal court.2 Plaintiff alleges that he was seriously injured when his truck was struck from behind by a vehicle owned and operated by Defendants.3 Defendants seek to implead a third party, Keith Anthony Comardelle.4 According to Defendants, Comardelle’s truck struck Defendants from the rear and propelled Defendants’ vehicle to strike Plaintiff’s truck.5 Defendants

1 R. Doc. 1-7 at 1. 2 R. Doc. 1. 3 R. Doc. 1-7, ¶¶ 3–11. 4 R. Doc. 11. 5 R. Doc. 11-2, ¶¶ 11–15. 1 deny any fault and, alternatively, assert that any fault attributed to them is merely technical, passive, and derivative, entitling them to full indemnity against Comardelle.6

The deadline to file third-party actions is December 15, 2025.7 On December 15, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motion.8 II. Law and Analysis “A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). “But, the third-party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the

court's leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer.” Id. The district court is given wide discretion in determining whether to permit leave. McDonald v. Union Carbide Corp., 734 F.2d 182, 184 (5th Cir. 1984). The court considers several factors when determining whether to grant a party leave to file a third-party complaint, including “avoiding circuitous actions, promoting judicial efficiency, obtaining consistent results, avoiding possible prejudice to other parties, the unreasonableness of the delay, and the lack of substance of the

third-party complaint.” Martin v. Lafon Nursing Facility of the Holy Fam., Inc., CIV.A. 06-5108, 2007 WL 4163678, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 20, 2007) (citing Am. Fid. & Cas. Co. v. Greyhound Corp., 232 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1956)). “Impleader is [] only

6 R. Doc. 11-1 at 4. 7 R. Doc. 9 at 2. 8 R. Doc. 11. 2 permitted in those cases in which a third party is derivatively or secondarily liable to the defendant.” Id. (citing United States v. Joe Grasso & Son, Inc., 380 F.2d 749, 751 (5th Cir.1967)).

State substantive law determines whether the right of indemnity and, therefore, derivative liability against a third-party defendant is available. Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Adams, 340 F.2d 271, 279 (5th Cir. 1965). “[A] party not actually at fault, whose liability results from the faults of others, may recover by way of indemnity from such others.” Bewley Furniture Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 285 So. 2d 216, 219 (La. 1973). “The obligation to indemnify may be express, as in a contractual

provision, or may be implied in law, even in the absence of an indemnity agreement.” Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc., 739 So.2d 183, 185 (La.1999) (citation omitted). The factors weigh in favor of granting leave. Defendants have alleged a plausible theory of indemnity, and there has been no undue delay. The parties will not be prejudiced by the proposed impleader as the discovery deadline is several months away.9 Granting Defendants leave to file their third-party complaint promotes judicial efficiency and consistent results.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint (R. Doc. 11) is GRANTED.

9 R. Doc. 9 at 4. 3 New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20% day of January, 2026.

4 J. DOSSIER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Timothy Petty v. Enterprise FM Trust et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-petty-v-enterprise-fm-trust-et-al-laed-2026.