Strecker v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company

Full title: CHARLOTTE STRECKER, et al., Plaintiff's, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas

Date published: May 27, 2003

Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-2477-R (N.D. Tex. May. 27, 2003)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-2477-R

May 27, 2003

ORDER

IRMA C. RAMIREZ, Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to the District Court's Amended Scheduling Order, filed January 9, 2003, which automatically refers all pleadings and discovery disputes and other non-dispositive motions, Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Defendant First Co.'s First Amended Original Answer to Co-Third-Party Defendant BGA Architects, Inc.'s Cross-Action, filed April 23, 2003, has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. No response has been filed.

First, Ltd. (f/k/a First Co.) seeks leave of court to amend its answer to BGA Architects, Inc.'s cross-action to specifically deny the averments made in the cross-action.

Leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a): In the absence of bad faith, undue delay, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, or undue prejudice to the opposing party, a court should grant leave to file an amended pleading. Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond Gem Trading, 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999). The motion for leave to amend does not appear to have been filed in bad faith, or with an intent to create undue delay or a dilatory motive and it does not appear that allowing amendment would cause undue prejudice. Moreover, no objection to the motion has been filed. Accordingly, the Court determines that the Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Defendant First Co.'s First Amended Original Answer to Co-Third-Party Defendant BGA Architects, Inc.'s Cross-Action should be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Defendant First Co.'s First Amended Original Answer to Co-Third-Party Defendant BGA Architects, Inc.'s Cross-Action be GRANTED and that Third-Party Defendant First Co.'s First Amended Original Answer to Co-Third-Party Defendant BGA Architects, Inc.'s Cross-Action be filed.

SO ORDERED.

ORDER

Pursuant to the District Court's Amended Scheduling Order, filed January 9, 2003, which automatically refers all pleadings and discovery disputes and other non-dispositive motions, Third-Party, Trammell Crow Residential Company's, Trammell Crow Residential Services' and South Central RS, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action, filed April 24, 2003, has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. The motion is unopposed.

Trammell Crow Residential Company's, Trammell Crow Residential Services' and South Central RS, Inc. seek leave of court to amend their pleadings to bring a cross-action against Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, BGA Architects, Inc., Carbon Development Corporation, Carbon Development n, Duke n General Contractors, Inc., Duke, Inc., Pearson Mechanical, Inc., First, Ltd., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., Arcanum III, Ltd., Saratoga Springs, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc., and LST Plumbing to plead for contribution and indemnity.

Leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). In the absence of bad faith, undue delay, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, or undue prejudice to the opposing party, a court should grant leave to file an amended pleading. Martin's Herend Imports. Inc. v. Diamond Gem Trading, 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999). The motion for leave to file cross-action does not appear to have been filed in bad faith, or with an intent to create undue delay or a dilatory motive and it does not appear that allowing amendment would cause the cross-defendants undue prejudice. Moreover, the motion is unopposed. Accordingly, the Court determines that Third-Party, Trammell Crow Residential Company's, Trammell Crow Residential Services' and South Central RS, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action should be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that Third-Party, Trammell Crow Residential Company's, Trammell Crow Residental Services' and South Central RS, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action be GRANTED and that Third-Party, Trammell Crow Residential Company's, Trammell Crow Residential Services' and South Central RS, Inc.'s Cross-Action Against Third-Party Plaintiff and Co-Third Party Defendants be filed.

ORDER

Pursuant to the District Court's Amended Scheduling Order, filed January 9, 2003, which automatically refers all pleadings and discovery disputes and other non-dispositive motions, Carbon Development Corporation, Arcanum III, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc. and Saratoga Springs, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action, filed April 22, 2003, has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. No response to the motion has been filed.

Carbon Development Corporation, Arcanum III, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc. and Saratoga Springs, Ltd. seek leave of court to amend their pleadings to bring a cross-action against Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Trammell Crow Residential Company, Trammell Crow Residential Services, South Central RS, Inc., Duke n General Contractors, Inc., Duke, Inc., BGA Architects, Inc., Pearson Mechanical, Inc., First, Ltd., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., and LST Plumbing for their allegedly intentional misconduct or other acts or omissions, which allegedly caused Plaintiff's damages, and to plead for contribution and indemnity.

Leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). In the absence of bad faith, undue delay, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, or undue prejudice to the opposing party, a court should grant leave to file an amended pleading. Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond Gem Trading, 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999). The motion for leave to file cross-action does not appear to have been filed in bad faith, or with an intent to create undue delay or a dilatory motive and it does not appear that allowing amendment would cause the cross-defendants undue prejudice. Moreover, no opposition to the motion has been filed. Accordingly, the Court determines that Carbon Development Corporation, Arcanum III, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc. and Saratoga Springs, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action should be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that Carbon Development Corporation, Arcanum III, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc. and Saratoga Springs, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action be GRANTED and that Carbon Development Corporation, Arcanum III, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc. and Saratoga Springs, Ltd.'s Cross-Action be filed.

ORDER

Pursuant to the District Court's Amended Scheduling Order, filed January 9, 2003, which automatically refers all pleadings and discovery disputes and other non-dispositive motions, First, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action Against Third Party Plaintiff Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Co-Third-Party Defendants Trammell Crow Residential Company, BGA Architects, Inc., Trammell Crow Residential Services, South Central RS, Inc., Carbon Development Corporation, Carbon Development, II, Duke II General Contractors, Inc., Duke, Inc., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., Arcanum III, Ltd., Saratoga Springs, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc., and LSI Plumbing, filed April 30, 2003, has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. No response to the motion has been filed.

First, Ltd. seeks leave of court to amend its pleadings to bring a cross-action against Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Trammell Crow Residential Company, BGA Architects, Inc., Trammell Crow Residential Services, South Central RS, Inc., Carbon Development Corporation, Carbon Development, II, Duke II General Contractors, Inc., Duke, Inc., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., Arcanum III, Ltd., Saratoga Springs, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc., and LSI Plumbing for their allegedly intentional misconduct or other acts or omissions, which allegedly caused Plaintiff's damages, and to plead for contribution and indemnity.

Leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). In the absence of bad faith, undue delay, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, or undue prejudice to the opposing party, a court should grant leave to file an amended pleading. Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond Gem Trading, 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999). The motion for leave to file cross-action does not appear to have been filed in bad faith, or with an intent to create undue delay or a dilatory motive and it does not appear that allowing amendment would cause the cross-defendants undue prejudice. Moreover, no opposition to the motion has been filed. Accordingly, the Court determines that First, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action Against Third Party Plaintiff Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Co-Third-Party Defendants Trammell Crow Residential Company, BGA Architects, Inc., Trammell Crow Residential Services, South Central RS, Inc., Carbon Development Corporation, Carbon Development, II, Duke II General Contractors, Inc., Duke, Inc., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., Arcanum III, Ltd., Saratoga Springs, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc., and LST Plumbing should be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that First, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action Against Third Party Plaintiff Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Co-Third-Party Defendants Trammell Crow Residential Company, BGA Architects, Inc., Trammell Crow Residential Services, South Central RS, Inc., Carbon Development Corporation, Carbon Development, II, Duke II General Contractors, Inc., Duke, Inc., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., Arcanum III, Ltd., Saratoga Springs, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc., and LST Plumbing be GRANTED and that First Co.'s Cross-Action Against Third Party Plaintiff Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Co-Third-Party Defendants Trammell Crow Residential Company, BGA Architects, Inc., Trammell Crow Residential Services, South Central RS, Inc., Carbon Development Corporation, Carbon Development, II, Duke II General Contractors, Inc., Duke, Inc., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., Arcanum III, Ltd., Saratoga Springs, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc., and LST Plumbing be filed.

SO ORDERED.

ORDER

Pursuant to the District Court's Amended Scheduling Order, filed January 9, 2003, which automatically refers all pleadings and discovery disputes and other non-dispositive motions, Duke II General Contractors, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action, filed April 30, 2003, has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. No response to the motion has been filed.

Duke n General Contractors, Inc. seeks leave of court to amend its pleadings to bring a cross-action against Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Trammell Crow Residential Company, Trammell Crow Residential Services, South Central RS, Inc., Carbon Development Corporation, Carbon Development, n, BGA Architects, Inc., Pearson Mechanical, Inc., First Ltd., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., Arcanum III, Ltd., Saratoga Springs, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc., LST Plumbing, and MP Mechanical for their allegedly intentional misconduct or other acts or omissions, which allegedly caused Plaintiff's damages, and to plead for contribution and indemnity. Leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). In the absence of bad faith, undue delay, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, or undue prejudice to the opposing party, a court should grant leave to file an amended pleading. Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond Gem Trading, 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999). The motion for leave to file cross-action does not appear to have been filed in bad faith, or with an intent to create undue delay or a dilatory motive and it does not appear that allowing amendment would cause the cross-defendants undue prejudice. Moreover, no opposition to the motion has been filed. Accordingly, the Court determines that Duke II General Contractors, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action should be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that Duke II General Contractors, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action be GRANTED and that Duke II General Contractors, Inc,'s Cross-Action be filed.

ORDER

Pursuant to the District Court's Amended Scheduling Order, filed January 9, 2003, which automatically refers all pleadings and discovery disputes and other non-dispositive motions, Third-Party, Trammell Crow Residential Company's, Trammell Crow Residental Services' and South Central RS, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Answer to Duke II General Contractors, Inc.'s Cross-Action, filed May 6, 2003, has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. The motion is unopposed.

Duke II General Contractor's, Inc. was granted leave to file a cross-action against the Trammell Crow Defendants on May 27, 2003. The Trammel Crow Defendants have sought to answer the cross-action within the time permitted by FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(2). Accordingly, leave to file an answer will be granted.

It is therefore ORDERED that Third-Party, Trammell Crow Residential Company's, Trammell Crow Residental Services' and South Central RS, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Answer to Duke II General Contractors, Inc.'s Cross-Action be GRANTED and that Defendant Answer to Duke II General Contractors, Inc.'s Cross-Action be filed.

SO ORDERED.

ORDER

Pursuant to the District Court's Amended Scheduling Order, filed January 9, 2003, which automatically refers all pleadings and discovery disputes and other non-dispositive motions, Defendant, Pearson Mechanical Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action and Amended Answer, filed May 13, 2003, has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. The motion is unopposed.

Pearson Mechanical, Inc. seeks leave of court to amend its pleadings to bring a cross-action against Trammell Crow Residential Company, Trammell Crow Residential Services, South Central RS, Inc., Carbon Development Corporation, Carbon Development, II, Duke E General Contractors, Inc., Duke, Inc., BGA Architects, Inc., First, Ltd., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., Arcanum III, Ltd., Saratoga Springs, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc., LSI Plumbing, and MP Mechanical to plead for contribution and indemnity and to file an amended answer.

Leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). In the absence of bad faith, undue delay, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, or undue prejudice to the opposing party, a court should grant leave to file an amended pleading. Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond Gem Trading, 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999). The motion for leave to file an amended answer and cross-action does not appear to have been filed in bad faith, or with an intent to create undue delay or a dilatory motive and it does not appear that allowing amendment would cause the cross-defendants undue prejudice. Moreover, the motion is unopposed. Accordingly, the Court determines that Defendant, Pearson Mechanical Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action and Amended Answer should be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant, Pearson Mechanical, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Action and Amended Answer be GRANTED and that Pearson Mechanical, Inc.'s Original Cross-Action Against Co-Third Party Defendants Trammell Crow Residential Company, Trammell Crow Residential Services, South Central RS, Inc., Carbon Development Corporation, Carbon Development, II, Duke II General Contractors, Inc., Duke, Inc., BGA Architects, Inc., First, Ltd., Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc., Arcanum III, Ltd., Saratoga Springs, Ltd., Arcanum Saratoga, Inc., LST Plumbing, and MP Mechanical and Defendant, Pearson Mechanical, Inc.'s First Amended Answer to Connecticut General Life Insurance Company's Third Party Complaint be filed.

ORDER

Pursuant to the District Court's Amended Scheduling Order, filed January 9, 2003, which automatically refers all pleadings and discovery disputes and other non-dispositive motions, Third-Party, Trammell Crow Residential Company's, Trammell Crow Residental Services' and South Central RS, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Answer to Pearson Mechanical, Inc.'s Cross-Action, filed May 6, 2003, has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. The motion is unopposed.

Pearson Mechanical, Inc. was granted leave to file a cross-action against the Trammell Crow Defendants on May 27, 2003. The Trammel Crow Defendants have sought to answer the cross-action within the time permitted by FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(2). Accordingly, leave to file an answer will be granted.

It is therefore ORDERED that Third-Party, Trammell Crow Residential Company's, Trammell Crow Residental Services' and South Central RS, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Answer to Pearson Mechanical, Inc.'s Cross-Action be GRANTED and that Defendant TrammellCrow, Trammell Crow Residental Services, Inc., and South Central RS, Inc.'s Original Answer to Pearson Mechanical, Inc.'s Cross-Action be filed.

SO ORDERED.

ORDER

Pursuant to the District Court's Amended Scheduling Order, filed January 9, 2003, which automatically refers all pleadings and discovery disputes and other non-dispositive motions, First, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Defendant First Co.'s Supplemental Designation of Expert Witnesses, filed April 25, 2003, has been referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. No response has been filed.

First, Ltd. seeks leave of court to supplement its designation of expert witnesses because it inadvertently omitted two experts from the original designation. On April 23, 2003, First, Ltd. timely filed its Designation of Expert Witnesses. The motion for leave to supplement that designation was filed two days later, after First, Ltd. discovered the omission of two of its experts.

It appears that First, Ltd. attempted to supplement its designation as soon as the error was discovered, within two days. There is no evidence that First, Ltd.'s failure to comply with the requirements of the scheduling order has prevented another party from procuring its own expert witness. The court notes that several months remain before trial is scheduled. Moreover, no response has been filed showing that there is prejudice to any other party sufficient to justify striking First, Ltd.'s additional experts solely on the ground of the missed deadline. Accordingly, the Court determines that First, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Defendant First Co.'s Supplemental Designation of Expert Witnesses should be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that First, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Defendant First Co.'s Supplemental Designation of Expert Witnesses be GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.