Baring Industries v. Rosen

Background

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1) for permission to file a third-party complaint against Conrad & Scherer, LLP (C&S). Rule 14 allows a defendant, with the court’s permission, to bring in a nonparty who may be responsible for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant.

Defendants asserted that an attorney associated with C&S provided Baring Industries with legal advice supporting an appeal in the underlying action. They sought contribution from C&S to the extent Baring Industries prevails on its legal-malpractice claim. Baring Industries opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed action was delayed, not timely, and not viable.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that permission to add a third party is discretionary. Relevant considerations include whether the defendant delayed, whether adding the party would delay or complicate trial, whether the third party would be prejudiced, and whether the proposed complaint states a valid claim.

The court found that the delay to the case was decisive. Defendants filed their motion less than two weeks before the fact-discovery deadline. That deadline had already been extended several times, and the court had stated that it would not grant further extensions. Adding C&S would require reopening fact discovery because Baring Industries and C&S would be entitled to conduct discovery about the proposed third-party claims. The court concluded that this additional delay outweighed any benefit from resolving the claims in the same case.

Disposition

The court DENIED defendants’ request for leave to file a third-party complaint against C&S. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 113.