Petty v. Enterprise FM Trust et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TIMOTHY PETTY
VERSUS
ENTERPRISE FM TRUST ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-1849
SECTION "G" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendants, Enterprise FM Trust, Bureau Veritas North America, and Ivan
Bodden (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion for Leave to File Third-Party
Complaint (R. Doc. 11). No opposition was filed. Having considered Defendants’
memorandum, the record, and the applicable law, the Court issues this Order and
Reasons granting the motion.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff filed the instant action in state court on July 10, 2025.1 On September
9, 2025, Plaintiff removed the matter to federal court.2 Plaintiff alleges that he was
seriously injured when his truck was struck from behind by a vehicle owned and
operated by Defendants.3 Defendants seek to implead a third party, Keith Anthony
Comardelle.4 According to Defendants, Comardelle’s truck struck Defendants from
the rear and propelled Defendants’ vehicle to strike Plaintiff’s truck.5 Defendants
1 R. Doc. 1-7 at 1.
2 R. Doc. 1.
3 R. Doc. 1-7, ¶¶ 3–11.
4 R. Doc. 11.
5 R. Doc. 11-2, ¶¶ 11–15.
Case 2:25-cv-01849-NJB-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
deny any fault and, alternatively, assert that any fault attributed to them is merely
technical, 	passive, 	and 	derivative, 	entitling 	them 	to 	full 	indemnity 	against
Comardelle.6
The deadline to file third-party actions is December 15, 2025.7 On December
15, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motion.8
II. 	Law and Analysis
“A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and
complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against
it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). “But, 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.” Id. The district court is given wide discretion in determining
whether to permit leave. McDonald v. Union Carbide Corp., 734 F.2d 182, 184 (5th
Cir. 1984). The court considers several factors when determining whether to grant a
party leave to file a third-party complaint, including “avoiding circuitous actions,
promoting judicial efficiency, obtaining consistent results, avoiding possible prejudice
to other parties, the unreasonableness of the delay, and the lack of substance of the
third-party complaint.” Martin v. Lafon Nursing Facility of the Holy Fam., Inc.,
CIV.A. 06-5108, 2007 WL 4163678, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 20, 2007) (citing Am. Fid. &
Cas. Co. v. Greyhound Corp., 232 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1956)). “Impleader is [] only
6 R. Doc. 11-1 at 4.
7 R. Doc. 9 at 2.
8 R. Doc. 11.
Case 2:25-cv-01849-NJB-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
permitted in those cases in which a third party is derivatively or secondarily liable to
the defendant.” Id. (citing United States v. Joe Grasso & Son, Inc., 380 F.2d 749, 751
(5th Cir.1967)).
State 	substantive 	law 	determines 	whether 	the 	right 	of 	indemnity 	and,
therefore, derivative liability against a third-party defendant is available. Gen.
Dynamics Corp. v. Adams, 340 F.2d 271, 279 (5th Cir. 1965). “[A] party not actually
at fault, whose liability results from the faults of others, may recover by way of
indemnity from such others.” Bewley Furniture Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 285 So. 2d
216, 219 (La. 1973). “The obligation to indemnify may be express, as in a contractual
provision, or may be implied in law, even in the absence of an indemnity agreement.”
Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc., 739 So.2d 183, 185 (La.1999) (citation omitted).
The factors weigh in favor of granting leave. Defendants have alleged a
plausible theory of indemnity, and there has been no undue delay. The parties will
not be prejudiced by the proposed impleader as the discovery deadline is several
months 	away.9 	Granting 	Defendants 	leave 	to 	file 	their 	third-party 	complaint
promotes judicial efficiency and consistent results.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint (R.
Doc. 11) is GRANTED.
9 R. Doc. 9 at 4.
Case 2:25-cv-01849-NJB-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20 th day of January, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01849-NJB-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4