Cowie v. SodexoMAGIC LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-03151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cowie v. SodexoMAGIC LLC, U.S. District Judge Cronan allowed defendants to file a third-party complaint against Vitality Foodservice and Seda North America.
SodexoMAGIC LLC and Sodexo Operations, LLC may file and serve a third-party complaint against Vitality Foodservice, Inc. and Seda North America, Inc. Carlton Cowie’s opposition was unsuccessful, and the proposed third-party defendants may be brought into the case through that filing.
What happened
In Cowie v. SodexoMAGIC LLC, the defendants asked to file a third-party complaint against Vitality Foodservice, Inc. and Seda North America, Inc., which were not yet parties to the case. Carlton Cowie opposed the request.
The court found that all relevant factors favored allowing the filing. It found no deliberate delay, no undue trial complication, no likely prejudice to the proposed third-party defendants, and enough alleged facts to suggest that the proposed complaint could state a valid claim. Any added delay was outweighed by the benefits of handling related issues together.
U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendants’ motion for permission to file and serve the third-party complaint and summons. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket Numbers 24 and 28.
The detailed version
- Cowie v. SodexoMAGIC LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03151
- John Cronan
- Feb. 15, 2021
Background
The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1) for permission to file a third-party complaint against non-parties Vitality Foodservice, Inc., doing business as Nestlé Professional Vitality, and Seda North America, Inc. A third-party complaint is a pleading seeking contribution, reimbursement, or other relief from a non-party that may be responsible for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant. Because the defendants sought to file the third-party complaint more than fourteen days after serving their original answer, they needed the court’s permission. Carlton Cowie opposed the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied four factors: whether the defendants deliberately delayed filing the motion, whether impleading the proposed third-party defendants would delay or complicate trial, whether those entities would be prejudiced, and whether the proposed third-party complaint stated a claim for which relief could be granted.
The court found that the factors all favored granting permission. The defendants had requested an extension to identify the alleged manufacturers, so the court found no deliberate delay. Cowie conceded that the filing would not complicate the trial, although he argued it would delay the trial. The court concluded that any additional delay was outweighed by judicial-economy benefits. It also found no indication that Vitality Foodservice or Seda North America would be prejudiced. Finally, the court found that the proposed complaint alleged facts that, if true, suggested a potentially valid claim.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendants’ motion for leave to file a third-party complaint and for leave to serve a third-party summons and complaint on Vitality Foodservice, Inc. and Seda North America, Inc. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket Numbers 24 and 28. The opinion addressed permission to add the proposed third-party claims; it did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute or of those proposed claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.