Bailey v. Franklin Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) PETER BAILEY, and ) TAMARA BAILEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-21-969-PRW ) FRANKLIN CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Franklin Corporation’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint and to Strike Scheduling Order (Dkt. 23). Defendant seeks to implead non-party Leggett & Platt, Incorporated as a Third-Party Defendant. Defendant represents that Leggett & Platt, Incorporated are the designers, manufacturers, and sellers of certain piece parts used in the chair, manufactured by Defendant, that allegedly injured Plaintiffs. Defendant further argues that Leggett & Platt, Incorporated may be liable for all or part of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1) provides that “[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.”1 Where, as here, leave is required to implead the 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). nonparty, the decision to grant such leave “rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” Here, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion appropriately furthers the purposes of the Rule, and will not “prejudice the other parties or unduly complicate the litigation.’ Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. 23); STRIKES this case from the Court’s October 2023 trial docket; and STRIKES the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 22) and the deadlines set forth therein. Defendant shall file its Third-Party Complaint within twenty days of this Order and shall serve process on the Third-Party Defendant within ninety days of issuance of summons. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July 2023. PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ? First Nat’l Bank of Nocona v. Duncan Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 957 F.2d 775, 777 (10th Cir. 1992). > 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1443 (3d ed. 2011); see also id. § 1446 (noting that “[t]he secondary or derivative liability notion is central” to Rule 14)