Mac Metals Sales, Inc. v. Ingram Barge Co., LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MAC METAL SALES, INC. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-422
INGRAM BARGE CO, LLC ET AL. 	SECTION “R” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Mac Metal Sales, Inc.’s (Mac Metal) motion to
modify the scheduling order and for leave to file a second amended
complaint. 1 	Defendant Mid-Ship Logistics, LLC (Mid-Ship) opposes the
motion. 2 For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mac Metal’s complaint alleges that in early 2024, Mac Metal arranged
for the shipment of more than 5,500 metric tons of steel coils from Busan,
South Korea to New Orleans, Louisiana. 3 It avers that a pre-shipment survey
showed that the cargo was in generally good condition when loaded onto the
M/V Lowlands Fidelity in South Korea. 4
1 	R. Doc. 61-1.
2 	R. Doc. 70.
3 	R. Doc. 1 at 3.
4 	R. Doc. 1 at 3.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 73 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 7

2
The M/V Lowlands Fidelity allegedly docked in New Orleans on
February 29, 2024.5 	The complaint alleges that Mid-Ship, acting as Mac
Metal’s agent, facilitated and coordinated moving the coils from the M/V
Lowlands Fidelity to Ingram Barge Co. barges and ensured those barges were
suitable for transporting the cargo. 6 	According to the complaint, Marine
Inspection LLC surveyors arrived to witness the movement of the coils from
the M/V Lowlands Fidelity to the Ingram barges, but the vessel agents denied
the inspectors access.7 	A tugboat allegedly moved the Ingram barges to
Harahan, Louisiana. 8
The complaint alleges that Marine Inspection LLC inspectors accessed
the Ingram barges in Harahan on March 4, 2024 and observed water on one
of the four barges, T-13995, which Marine Inspection LLC then reported. 9
Upon the Ingram barges’ arrival in Indiana a month later, allegedly one-
quarter of the coils on the T-13995 had a visible waterline, one-quarter had
visible mold, and the remaining half had an indeterminate waterline. 10 Mac
Metal alleges that a damages survey conducted for Travelers’, Mac Metal’s
5 	Id.
6 	Id. at 3-4.
7 	Id. at 4.
8 	Id.
9 	Id. at 5.
10 	Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 73 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 7

3
insurer, concluded that water damaged the coils aboard T-13995 during or
after the New Orleans discharge. 11
Mac Metal filed a complaint in admiralty in February 2025. 12 	Mac
Metal alleged causes of action against seven defendants. Plaintiff has since
voluntarily dismissed two of the seven defendants, and the Court dismissed
a third. One of the remaining defendants is Mid-Ship. Mac Metal sued Mid-
Ship for negligence. 	Mid-Ship then moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. 	The Court granted the motion to
dismiss with leave to amend. Mac Metal then filed an amended complaint. 13
Mid-Ship then moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. 14 Mac Metal then moved to modify
the scheduling order, which the Court denied for lack of good cause. 15
Mac Metal now moves again to modify the scheduling order, seeking
to file a second amended complaint in response to Mid-Ship’s pending
motion to dismiss. 16 	Mid-Ship opposes the motion. 17 	For the following
11 	Id. at 6.
12 	Id.
13 	R. Doc. 47.
14 	R. Doc. 53.
15 	R. Doc. 55.
16 	R. Doc. 61.
17 	R. Doc. 70.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 73 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 7

4
reasons, the Court denies Mac Metal’s motion to modify the scheduling order
and to file a second amended complaint.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
If the deadline for amending pleadings in a case management order has
expired, the movant must demonstrate good cause to modify the scheduling
order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) before the more liberal
standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) applies to the court’s
decision to grant or deny leave. 	Shaw v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 93
F.4th 284, 292 (5th Cir. 2024). 	In the Fifth Circuit, courts consider four
factors to determine whether good cause exists to grant leave to amend after
the expiration of a scheduling order deadline: “(1) the explanation for the
failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the importance of the
amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the
availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” Id. at 293 (quoting
Filgueira v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 734 F.3d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2013).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Here, Mac Metal has not shown good cause to justify leave to amend
after the expiration of the scheduling order deadline. On the first factor, Mac
Metal’s explanation is that Mid-Ship raised “new issues” regarding the
agency relationship in its second Motion to Dismiss that it did not raise in its
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 73 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 7

5
first Motion to Dismiss, and that the amended complaint could address those
arguments. 18
Such a justification is unavailing. 	This Court dismissed Mac Metal’s
original complaint as to Mid-Ship with leave to amend on the agency
relationship, the precise issue upon which Mac Metal now asserts it needs to
be able to elaborate. 19 	Mac Metal has already been given an opportunity to
amend its complaint on this exact issue. 	Mac Metal had every reason to
plausibly plead an agency relationship after the Court granted leave to
amend on precisely that topic. 	See Seybold v. Charter Communications,
Inc., 2023 WL 7381438, at *2 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2023) (per curiam) (holding
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend
when the plaintiff failed to follow prior instructions regarding the errors
identified in the complaint). 	That Mid-Ship raised different arguments to
respond to a different complaint does not necessitate leave to amend and is,
in fact, expected. This factor weighs against finding good cause to modify the
scheduling order.
18 	R. Doc. 61, at 1.
19 	See R. Doc. 44, allowing Mac Metal to amend the complaint to “allege
facts plausibly suggesting the existence of an agency relationship and
imposing a duty of care on Mid-Ship owed to Mac Metal Sales.”
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 73 Filed 11/18/25 Page 5 of 7

6
As to the second factor, Mac Metal asserts that the amendment is
important. 	However, Mac Metal also asserts that the First Amended
Complaint alleges “numerous facts supporting the agency relationship and
Mid-Ship’s 	duty.” 20 	Accepting 	that 	contention 	as 	true, 	the 	Amended
Complaint should already be able to withstand the arguments that Mid-Ship
raises in its second motion to dismiss. 	This factor weighs against finding
good cause.
Further, amendment would prejudice Mid-Ship by forcing it to file a
third motion to dismiss and dispute anew the agency relationship at the
pleadings stage. 	See Shaw, 93 F.4th at 293 (finding that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in considering that further amendment would
prejudice the defendant by “forcing it to file a third motion to dismiss”); see
also Filgueira v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 734 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 2013)
(affirming district court’s finding that an untimely amendment would unduly
prejudice the defendant and “extend the litigation needlessly”). This factor,
too, weighs against finding good cause.
The fourth factor, availability of a continuance, weighs against finding
good cause to modify the scheduling order. A continuance would draw out
this litigation and stress this Court’s already busy schedule and docket.
20 	R. Doc. 61-1, at 2.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 73 Filed 11/18/25 Page 6 of 7

7
Further, a continuance would not avoid the “inevitable prejudice” to Mid-
Ship. 	Filgueira, 734 F.3d at 424. 	In considering whether to modify a
scheduling order, the court “must consider not only the facts of the particular
case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and the court’s.” Streber
v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000).
Considering the four factors, the Court finds that Mac Metal has not
established good cause to modify the scheduling order to allow for the filing
of another amended complaint. Because Mac Metal has not established good
cause to modify the scheduling order, the Court need not reach the Rule 15(a)
phase of the analysis. Filgueira, 734 F.3d at 422 (noting that the more liberal
Rule 15(a) standard applies only after a party shows good cause for modifying
the scheduling order).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Mac Metal’s motion to
modify the scheduling order and for leave to file a second amended
complaint.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of November, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 73 Filed 11/18/25 Page 7 of 7