Joinder of Additional Defendants Denied in Federal Court as Untimely

In the case of Cooney v. Buck Motorsports Park LLC, No. 5:23-CV-02346-MKC (E.D. Pa. Jan 15, 2025 Costello, J.), the court addressed a Plaintiff’s opposition to a Defendant’s Motion for Leave of Court to Join Additional Defendants into the case which involved allegations of personal injury after a truck allegedly struck the Plaintiff during a dirt race track event.

The Plaintiffs opposed the joinder of the proposed third party Defendants under Federal Rule 14(a) and Local Rule 14.1(a) by asserting that the Motion to Join was untimely.

The court noted that, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14(a), a “defending party may, as third-party Plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or maybe liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.” 

The court additionally noted that, under F.R.C.P. 14(a)(1), “the third-party Plaintiff must, by motion obtain the court’s leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer.”

Moreover, the court noted that the Eastern District Local Rule of Court 14.1 holds that applications pursuant to F.R.C.P. 14 for leave to join additional Defendants after the expiration of the time limit specified in that rule “will ordinarily be denied as untimely unless filed not more than 90 days after the service of the moving party’s answer.” However, the court noted that the trial court retained discretion on whether or not to apply that local rule or not.

The court additionally noted that, in this matter, the scheduled trial was only a few months away, that the discovery deadline had already been previously extended, and that the addition of the third party Defendants would not only extend the discovery period further, but would also guarantee a delay of trial and would complicate the issues at trial.

The court additionally noted that the late joinder would also likely harm the proposed third-party Defendants given how far along the original case had already proceeded. The court additionally noted that prejudice could result to the Plaintiff for the same reasons.

For all of these reasons, the court denied the Motion to Join the Third Party Defendants after finding that the motion was untimely and without sufficient justification where the original Defendants had sought the leave of court more than a year after they filed their Answer to the Complaint. 

The court also noted that the Defendants were long aware of the existence of the proposed third-party Defendants, having listed them as individuals with discoverable information in the original Defendant’s initial federal court disclosures.

The court also noted that the Defendants who wished to join the third-party Defendants failed to explain to the court why they could not have learned of their alleged claims against the third-party Defendants sooner.

As such, the Motion to Join was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source: The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 6, 2025).

Trial Court Addresses Joinder of Additional Defendants in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Gilbert v. UMPC Williamsport, No. CV-21-00,169 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Sept. 16, 2024 Lindhardt, J.), the court overruled Preliminary Objections filed by Additional Defendants relative to their joinder into this medical malpractice matter.

In so ruling, the court noted that, in this case involving alleged improper and negligent pre- and post-natal treatment to the Plaintiff and her child, the joinder of the Additional Defendants would be allowed where the statutes of limitations on the claims presented would not expire until several years in the future and, some of which, had not yet begun to run.

The court also noted that allowing the joinder to proceed would be the most sensible approach on the case presented in terms of judicial economy and other interests.

The court additionally found that the allegations in the Joinder Complaint were sufficiently clear to enable the Additional Defendants to prepare their defenses.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert. www.Law.com (Oct. 30, 2024).

Claims of Direct Liability To Plaintiff Asserted in a Joinder Complaint Found to be Barred by the Statute of Limitations

In the case of Brown-Papp v. Phillips, No. 2017-CV-0210 (C.P. Bradford Co. Mach 28, 2024 Beirne, P.J.), the court, following a jury trial, granted an Additional Defendant’s Motion to Vacate/Dismiss the Joinder Complaint filed against the Additional Defendant in a motor vehicle accident case based upon a finding that any effort by the joining party to assert direct claims against the Additional Defendant relative to the Plaintiff's personal injury claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out a motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff sued a defendant driver and a UIM carrier. The UIM carrier brought in a second driver allegedly involved in accident as an Additional Defendant in order to assert the credit for the liability insurance limits of that Additional Defendant.

The case proceeded through trial and, during the trial, the Additional Defendant preserved the statute of limitations arguments by way of a pre-trial motion, a Motion for a Nonsuit, and a Motion for a Directed Verdict. The trial court took all of those motions under advisement for a later decision and did not decide them during the course of the trial. 

The jury then entered a verdict finding each Defendant driver to be 50% responsible for the happening of the accident.

In a post-trial motion, the Additional Defendant reiterated the Motion to Vacate/Dismiss any effort by the Plaintiff to recover against the Additional Defendant under a statue of limitations argument. The Additional Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff never filed any direct claim against the Additional Defendant. Moreover, it was established that the UIM carrier had not brought the Additional Defendant into the case until after the statute of limitations had expired. 

In this decision, the court granted the Additional Defendant’s Motion to Vacate/Dismiss on the basis of the application of the statute of limitations.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Proper Arguments on Preliminary Objections to Joinder Complaints

In the case of Diaz-Martinez v. Maid Rite, No. 17-CV-577 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 17, 2019 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed Preliminary Objections to a joinder of Additional Defendants in a products liability action.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant manufacturers in this products liability action secured prior leave of court to file a late Joinder Complaint which joined and asserted indemnification and contribution claims against certain Additional Defendants on the grounds that those Additional Defendants made alterations to the product following the manufacturing of the product, which alterations allegedly created the alleged defect at issue.

The Additional Defendants who were joined in the matter filed Preliminary Objections to the late joinder and argued that the original Defendant had not established a reasonable justification for the delay in filing the Joinder Complaint. The Additional Defendants also asserted that they had been prejudiced by their untimely joinder.

Judge Nealon reiterated, as he has in prior decisions, that under Pa. R.C.P. 2253(b), only plaintiffs may challenge late joinders on the basis “that the joining party has not shown a reasonable justification for its delay” in seeking the joinder.

The court noted that the Plaintiffs in this case had not objected to the late joinder of the Additional Defendant. Accordingly, the court found that the issue of a reasonable justification for the delay is an irrelevant consideration in the matter.

The court went on to reject the claim of prejudice by the Additional Defendants by noting that no depositions have been scheduled to take, the parties had not conducted any joint inspection of the product at issue, no discovery deadlines have been put in place, and a trial date has not yet even been requested.

The court also noted that the Additional Defendants had not identified that any evidence was lost or destroyed prior to their joinder. Nor was there any allegation that the ability of the Additional Defendants to conduct discovery or prepare their defense had been jeopardized by the late joinder.

Consequently, the court overruled the Preliminary Objections filed by the Additional Defendants to the Joinder Complaint.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK. 

A Primer on Joining and Serving Additional Defendants

Lackawanna County Courthouse

In the medical malpractice case of Mayer v. Delserra, No. 17–CV-03968 (C.P. Lacka.  Co. Oct. 5, 2018 Nealon, J.), the trial court in Lackawanna County addressed objections to a Defendant’s service of a third party Complaint upon an Additional Defendant. 

More specifically, the Additional Defendant who was served with the Joinder Complaint filed Preliminary Objections challenging the service of original process of the Joinder Complaint as improper after the original Defendant-hospital attempted to serve that Additional Defendant via certified mail at an incorrect office address.  

The joined Additional Defendant also asserted that the Joinder Complaint should be dismissed since the statute of limitations had expired.  

The non-moving original Defendant-hospital argued in response that the service of process by certified mail was proper and that the Additional Defendant had waived the right to object to the allegedly defective service by virtue of the Additional Defendant’s attorney’s attendance at the two (2) depositions that have been conducted in the case to date.  

After reviewing the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to the service of a Joinder Complaint upon a Pennsylvania Additional Defendant, the court noted that these Rules required that such service be effectuated by the Sheriff hand-delivering the original process to the Additional Defendant or an appropriate person at that Defendant’s residence or business.  An exception to those Rules was that service could be completed by the Defendant's attorney agreeing to accept service.

Here, the court set aside the improper service in this matter and directed the Defendant-hospital to reinstate the Joinder Complaint and serve the same properly.  

In so ruling, Judge Nealon found that the attendance of the Additional Defendant’s attorney at previously scheduled depositions, which depositions occurred after the Preliminary Objections at issue had already been filed, did not constitute such action on the merits of the case by that Additional Defendant so as to waive the right to object to defective service.  Rather, the court noted that such attendance at the deposition instead served to cure any prejudice that may have resulted from the improper service and the Additional Defendant’s belated entry into the case.  

The court further ruled that, since the applicable statute of limitations period relative to the Defendant-hospital’s contribution and indemnification claims had not yet begun to run, the proper remedy for the defective service was to simply set it aside and allow the joining party to attempt to properly serve that Additional Defendant.

Anyone wishing to review this case may click HERE.

A Primer on Joining Additional Defendants

In the case of Kessock v. Conestoga Title Ins. Co., 2018 Pa.Super. 226 (Pa.Super. Aug. 9, 2018 Shogan, J., Lazarus, J., Dubow, J.)(Op. by Shogan, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the joinder of an additional defendant in the matter where the court found that the additional defendants were not prejudiced by the untimely joinder motion and where the applicable statute of limitations had not yet begun to run on crossclaims for indemnification where no underlying judgment had been entered yet in the case.

In its decision, the Court provides a nice overview of the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to the joinder of additional defendants in a civil litigation matter.

This Opinion can be viewed online HERE.

Updates, Trends and Thoughts regarding Pennsylvania Civil Litigation matters by

Northeastern Pennsylvania Insurance Defense Attorney Daniel E. Cummins

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Motion to Join Additional Defendant Beyond Time Allowed by Rules

In his recent decision in the case of Lemoncelli v. Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., No. 2011-CV-2565 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 24, 2017 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed a Defendant’s  Motion to Join an Additional Defendant beyond the time allowed under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This matter arose out of a products liability action in which one Defendant manufacturer sought to joint another manufacturer as an Additional Defendant.   The Defendant that was to be joined opposed its joinder on the grounds that the original Defendant did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing its joinder request and also that the proposed joinder would prejudice the Defendant to be joined.  

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

 

Judge Nealon ruled that, since the Plaintiffs did not oppose the original Defendant’s untimely joinder of the Additional Defendant, the existence of absence of some reasonable justification for the delay in presenting the joinder request is not a relevant consideration under Pa. R.C.P. 2253(b).  

The court also noted that the Defendant to be joined had not identified any prejudice that it would suffer as a result of being joined late.

Accordingly, the court granted the original Defendant’s Motion to Leave to Join the Additional Defendant.  


Anyone wishing to read this decision on Lemoncelli online, may click this LINK.

Judge Zulick of Monroe County Addresses Motion to Join Additional Defendant Beyond Time Allowed By Rules

In his recent decision in the case of Liu v. Pi Delta Psi Fraternity, No. 3028-CV-2015 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 2, 2016 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur Zulick of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas allowed the late joinder of an Additional Defendant over the objection of the Plaintiff.  

Judge Arthur L. Zulick
Monroe County

 

The court allowed this joinder despite the passage of several months in this wrongful death and negligence case.   The court found the interest of judicial economy would be advanced by allowing the late joinder particularly where the case was still in discovery and a volume of information on the claims presented had been secured from the companion criminal cases.  

Accordingly, an original Defendant’s Motion to File a Joinder Complaint was granted.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

 

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 31, 2017).  

 

Judge Minora of Lackawanna County Addresses Standard to Join Additional Defendant

In his recent decision in the case of Montana v. Oakford Wood Home Owners Assn., No. 2012-CV-236 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2013 Minora, J.), Judge Carmen D. Minora of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas granted an original Defendant's Motion for Leave to Join an Additional Defendant.  The court's opinion provides a thorough overview of the current status of the law on this particular issue.

The court granted the Defendant's Motion, in part, because there was no potential risk for delay attributable to newly joined parties.  The court also found that the Additional Defendant failed to provide any grounds for disallowing its late joinder under Rule 2253(b).

The Court employed the current version of Pa. R.C.P. 2253, which has changed the burden applicable to a defendant who seeks to join an additional defendant beyond the sixty day period prescribed.

The current version of Rule 2253, effective January 6, 2005, deletes the “upon cause shown” requirement, and subsection (b) now merely entitles the plaintiff to object to the belated joinder on the basis that the moving party has failed to demonstrate a “reasonable justification for its delay in commencing joinder proceedings.” Any other party, including the party who is to be joined as an additional defendant, may object only on the grounds of prejudice.

Applying these rules to the circumstances before the court in the Montana case led Judge Minora to grant the motion and allow for the joinder of an additional defendant.

Anyone wishing to review this decision of Judge Minora in the Montana case may click this LINK.

For a Tort Talk synopsis of another decision on this same issue handed down by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas back in 2011 in the case of Chelland v. Siegfried v. Solomon, click HERE.

 

Clarification on Recurring Issue of Challenges to Late Joinder of Additional Defendants

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas recently issued an Opinion on a recurring issue in the case of  Chelland v. Siegfried v. Solomon, No. 2010 - CV - 6113 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 1, 2011 Nealon, J.), which involved an additional defendant's challenge to an original defendant's untimely joinder of the additional defendant.

The additional defendant primarily argued that the defendant had not provided reasonable justification or excuse for its delay of several months in seeking to join the additional defendant.

Judge Nealon pointed out that Pa.R.C.P. 2253 was amended in 2005 and now only permits the plaintiff to raise the "reasonable justification for delay" objection, whereas all parties (plaintiff and additional defendants) may still object on the ground of prejudice.

Thus, it appears that an assertion by an additional defendant that there was no "reasonable justification" to explain away the original defendant's late joinder is no longer valid.  Rather, the additional defendant must show the more difficult element of prejudice in order to prevail on a preliminary objection to a late joinder.

Anyone desiring a copy of Judge Nealon's detailed Opinion on this issue in the case of Chelland v. Siegfried v. Solomon may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.