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
Third-party plaintiffs, Enterprise FM Trust, Bureau Veritas North America,
and Ivan Bodden filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental and Amended Third-
Party Complaint (R. Doc. 23). Third-party defendant Keith Comardelle opposes the
motion.1 Having considered the parties’ briefing, the record, and the applicable law,
the Court grants the motion for the reasons stated below.
On January 20, 2026, the Court granted third-party plaintiffs leave to file a
third-party demand seeking indemnification.2 The third-party plaintiffs now seek
leave to amend their complaint to add a claim for their own damages based on
uninsured losses, insurance deductibles, out-of-pocket costs and expenses, among
other damages.3
The deadline set by the District Court for amendments to pleadings passed on
December 15, 2025.4 When, as here, a party’s request to amend a third-party pleading
is beyond the scheduling order deadline, the moving party must establish good cause
1 R. Doc. 26.
2 R. Doc. 14.
3 R. Doc. 23-1 at 3.
4 R. Doc. 9 at 2.
Case 2:25-cv-01849-NJB-EJD Document 27 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 4

2
to extend that deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). S&W
Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535–36 (5th
Cir. 2003). “Only after the Court finds that the good cause standard is satisfied under
Rule 16(b) will the ‘more permissive’ Rule 15(a) standard apply.” Jackson v. Gray,
345 F.R.D. 597, 607 (E.D. La. 2024) (quoting Butler v. Taser Intern., Inc., 535 F. App'x
371, 372 (5th Cir. 2013)).
“In making its determination of good cause, the Court considers four factors:
(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.” Jackson, 345 F.R.D.
at 607 (citing Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2008);
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003)).
These factors weigh in favor of concluding that good cause exists to modify the
scheduling order. The facts relative to the proposed amendment overlap with the
existing claims.5 Allowing the proposed claim would further the important interest of
judicial efficiency. The third-party defendant is unlikely to be prejudiced by an
additional claim flowing from the same set of facts. Although a pending motion to
dismiss (rather than any new information) may have prompted the request to
amend,6 the other factors weigh strongly in favor of amendment. Accordingly, good
5 See R. Doc. 15.
6 R. Doc. 20.
Case 2:25-cv-01849-NJB-EJD Document 27 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 4

3
cause exists to extend the amendment deadline. The Court thus turns to Rule 15(a)’s
more permissive standard.
Rule 	15(a)(2) 	directs 	that 	courts 	“should 	freely 	give 	leave 	[to 	amend a
complaint] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Because the language
of this rule “evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend[,]” the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has instructed that a “district court must
possess a ‘substantial reason’ to deny a request for leave to amend.” Smith v. EMC
Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lyn–Lea Travel Corp. v. Am.
Airlines, 283 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2002)). Courts must consider five factors in
determining whether such a substantial reason is present: “1) undue delay, 2) bad
faith 	or 	dilatory 	motive, 	3) 	repeated 	failure 	to 	cure 	deficiencies 	by 	previous
amendments, 4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, and 5) futility of the
amendment.” Id. (citing Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir.
2003)); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Absent any of these factors,
the leave sought should be ‘freely given.’” Id. (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
The third-party plaintiffs’ delay in moving to amend their complaint was not
undue, and there is no indication the amendment would unduly prejudice the third-
party defendant. Nor is there any indication of bad faith or dilatory motive. The
amendment was not preceded by repeated failures to cure prior deficiencies. And,
finally, there is no indication at this stage that amendment would be futile. Thus, no
Case 2:25-cv-01849-NJB-EJD Document 27 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 4

4
substantial reason supports denying the third-party plaintiffs’ motion for leave to
amend.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Supplemental and
Amended Third-Party Complaint (R. Doc. 23) is GRANTED and that the proposed
pleading (R. Doc. 23-2) be filed in the record.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2 nd day of April, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01849-NJB-EJD Document 27 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 4