Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractindemnitypleamotioncivil procedure

contractpleamotion

Related Cases

Spears v. First American eAppraiseIT, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 1748514

Facts

First American, operating as eAppraiseIT, had a contract with Washington Mutual Bank that included an indemnity clause. After the FDIC took over as receiver for Washington Mutual, First American attempted to implead the FDIC for indemnity based on allegations that Washington Mutual pressured it to inflate appraisals. However, First American's motion came years after the deadline to amend pleadings, leading the court to question its diligence in pursuing the claims.

First American, acting under the name eAppraiseIT, entered into a contract with Washington Mutual to provide appraisal management services.

Issue

Did First American demonstrate good cause to modify the court's scheduling order to allow the filing of a third-party complaint against the FDIC?

Rule

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a showing of good cause for any modification to the court's scheduling order, focusing on the diligence of the party seeking the extension.

Rule 16 requires a showing of good cause, for any modification to the court's scheduling order.

Analysis

The court found that First American did not act diligently in seeking to file the third-party complaint against the FDIC. It noted that First American had been aware of the potential basis for its claims since at least May 2011, yet waited 18 months to seek permission. The court emphasized that the delay indicated a lack of due diligence, which is critical for establishing good cause under Rule 16.

Here, First American has not been diligent. Too much time has passed since First American was reasonably on notice of the possible basis for impleading the FDIC.

Conclusion

The court denied First American's motion to file a third-party complaint against the FDIC, concluding that it failed to demonstrate the necessary diligence required to modify the scheduling order.

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES leave for First American to file a third-party complaint.

Who won?

The FDIC prevailed in this case as the court denied First American's motion, citing First American's lack of diligence in pursuing its claims.

The court denies the motion to file an amended complaint.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Aiken v. Business and Industry Health Group, Inc., 885 F.Supp. 1474, 130 Lab.Cas. P 57,996, 10 IER Cases 995

United States Gypsum, Inc. v. Indiana Gas Co., Inc., 735 N.E.2d 790, Util. L. Rep. P 26,756

In re Solomon R., 123 A.D.3d 934, 999 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08849

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1, 38 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 124, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,396, 53 USLW 4903, 1 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1297

Haynes v. Cain, 298 F.3d 375