AEGIS Security Insurance Company v. MW Industrial Services, Inc.
1:23-cv-00374
| S.D. Ala. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Aegis Security Insurance Company (Aegis) sued MW Industrial Services, Inc. (MWIS); MWIS counterclaimed and filed third-party claims against The Mahorsky Group, Inc. (MGI) and others.
- Aegis sought leave to file a conditional crossclaim against MGI after the deadline for amending pleadings, citing new developments depending on the outcome of dispositive motions.
- The Mahorsky Defendants opposed, arguing Aegis lacked good cause for late filing and that amending would prejudice MGI; MWIS did not oppose.
- Court scheduling was delayed due to criminal trial docket congestion, resulting in the suspension and resetting of deadlines and referral to a magistrate judge for rescheduling.
- The Mahorsky Defendants also moved to stay a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction, arguing unfair prejudice if MWIS presents certain evidence.
- The court allowed Aegis's late crossclaim filing but denied the stay of the hearing, permitting further briefing by the Mahorsky Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to file crossclaim after deadline (Rule 16/15) | Aegis: Good cause exists due to conditional nature; outcome turns on pending dispositive motions | Mahorsky Defendants: No good cause; undue delay; prejudice; Aegis knew facts earlier | Granted: Good cause found due to conditionality; no undue prejudice; leave granted |
| Motion to stay preliminary injunction hearing | (N/A) | Mahorsky Defendants: Hearing would disadvantage them, can't adequately argue points | Denied: No prejudice shown; opportunity for supplemental briefing allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir. 1998) (explains requirement to show good cause under Rule 16(b) to amend scheduling orders after deadline)
- Mann v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2013) (motion to amend may be denied for undue delay, prejudice, or futility)
- Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of the Div. of Univs. of the Fla. Dep’t of Educ. ex rel. Univ. of S. Fla., 342 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2003) (standards for granting leave to amend pleadings)