Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Hudson Excess Insurance…

Background

Hudson Excess Insurance Company filed an unopposed motion for permission to file and serve an amended counterclaim and a third-party summons and complaint. The court later ordered Hudson to submit a redline version of the proposed amended counterclaim. That order was mistakenly docketed as granting the motion.

Hudson then filed the requested redline and, without obtaining additional permission, filed the contemplated third-party complaint. The case’s scheduling order stated that amended pleadings and additional parties could not be filed or joined without the court’s permission.

Court’s Analysis

Because of the apparent docketing error and the court’s stated intent to grant the motion, the court said it would accept Hudson’s third-party complaint. The court cited the general principle that timely requests to add nonparties should ordinarily be granted to promote efficiency unless doing so would prejudice the plaintiff, unnecessarily complicate the trial, or promote an obviously meritless claim.

The court separately relied on Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in addressing Hudson’s request to amend its counterclaim.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that Hudson’s motion was DENIED as moot insofar as it requested leave to file and serve a third-party summons and complaint. The motion was GRANTED insofar as it sought leave to file and serve an amended counterclaim. Hudson’s amended counterclaim was due by February 21, 2024.

The court also warned that failure to comply with its deadlines, orders, and practice rules could lead to sanctions, including preclusion or dismissal of claims or defenses and monetary sanctions, including against counsel personally.