Szabo v. MCC Contractor LLC
- Sidney Stein
- 1:20-cv-07253
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Szabo v. MCC Contractor LLC, Judge Stein granted Szabo’s motion to add Eastbound Construction LLC as a defendant and extended discovery deadlines.
Tivadar Szabo, Eastbound Construction LLC, MCC Contractor LLC, BR 31, LLC, and the other parties to the lawsuit were affected. Eastbound was added as a direct defendant, and the parties received further discovery-related extensions.
What happened
In Szabo v. MCC Contractor LLC, Tivadar Szabo asked to add Eastbound Construction LLC as a direct defendant in his personal-injury lawsuit. He said discovery revealed information that could make Eastbound responsible for his injuries.
Szabo was injured after falling from an elevated height at a construction site. Eastbound was the general contractor, and the court found that Eastbound had not shown it would be harmed by being added because discovery was still underway.
Judge Sidney H. Stein granted the motion to add Eastbound as a defendant and granted the parties’ request for further extensions of the discovery deadlines.
The detailed version
- Szabo v. MCC Contractor LLC · No. 1:20-cv-07253
- Sidney Stein
- July 29, 2021
Background
Tivadar Szabo brought a personal-injury action against MCC Contractor LLC and BR 31, LLC. He alleged that he fell from an elevated height at a construction site on July 13, 2020, suffering injuries and emotional distress. MCC Contractor later served Arc Steel Supply 2020 Inc. and Eastbound Construction LLC with third-party complaints. The opinion states that BR 31 employed Eastbound as the general contractor for work at the site, and that Arc Steel Supply, Szabo’s employer, was Eastbound’s subcontractor.
Szabo asked to add Eastbound as a direct defendant in the main action. Eastbound opposed the request. Szabo argued that he learned through Eastbound’s initial disclosures during discovery about facts that could support Eastbound’s liability for his injuries.
Legal standard
Because the court had entered a scheduling order setting January 29, 2021, as the deadline for adding new parties, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), rather than the more permissive amendment standard in Rule 15, governed the request. Rule 16(b) allows a scheduling order to be changed for good cause with the judge’s consent. Good cause generally depends on whether the moving party acted diligently. The court could also consider prejudice to the opposing party.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court found good cause because Szabo identified information learned through discovery that was previously unavailable and could support adding Eastbound. The court also found that Eastbound had not provided evidence of prejudice. Discovery was not complete, no depositions had been conducted, and the extended deadlines gave Eastbound time to conduct any needed discovery.
The court therefore granted Szabo’s motion to add Eastbound Construction LLC as a direct defendant in the main action. The court also granted the parties’ letter motion dated June 21, 2021, requesting further extensions of fact discovery, and set additional deadlines for fact discovery, expert reports, expert depositions, and the pretrial conference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.