Madden Gulf Coast LLC v. Hilark Industries, Inc., 2:24-cv-02233

Madden Gulf Coast, LLC, a highway construction company, leased six dump trucks equipped with steel dump bodies from third parties; the dump bodies were manufactured/sold by Hilark Industries, Inc. and related entities (the "HilBilt Defendants").
In September 2023, two of these trucks overturned while dumping loads, allegedly due to defective welds and design; the remaining trucks were taken out of service for nearly 11 months and later retrofitted by Madden.
Madden sued several entities under the Louisiana Products Liability Act and related warranty, negligence, and redhibition claims; it also sought damages for truck loss, lease expenses, business interruption, and worker's compensation claims.
During discovery, Madden learned about an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) between the HilBilt and Lufkin Defendants, as well as potential claims against Grayling Hill (individual liability) and Travelers (insurance coverage and bad faith).
Madden moved to amend its complaint after the deadline, citing newly discovered evidence from APA documents and late depositions, seeking to add/clarify claims, and add Travelers as a party.
The Lufkin and HilBilt Defendants contested the amendment, arguing delay, prejudice, and futility, especially since discovery had closed and dispositive motions had been filed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to allow late amendment to add/clarify claims and parties	Amendment justified by new facts from recent discovery, vital for judicial economy and full relief	Delay not justified; Madden should have acted sooner; amendment prejudicial and futile at this stage	Amendment permitted; Madden showed good cause
Justification for delay in amending	Delay explained by timing of when factual basis for claims was discovered through depositions	Madden should have expedited discovery and amendment, especially given known APA and prior discovery delays	Delay excused; Madden acted diligently based on new info
Prejudice to Defendants	Amendment important to resolve all claims/parties now, reducing need for separate actions	Prejudiced by new claims post-discovery, need to refile dispositive motions, added discovery required	Prejudice is not enough to deny amendment
Futility of the proposed amendment	New claims against Travelers and Hill valid, facts still developing, futility best resolved on summary judgment	Claims (especially manufacturer liability) are futile and already subject of summary judgment briefing	Futility arguments deferred to summary judgment stage

S&W Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank, 315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) (clarified that Rule 16 governs post-deadline amendments and requires good cause)
Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 551 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2008) (articulates the standard for amending pleadings after a scheduling order)
Squyres v. Heico Companies, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 224 (5th Cir. 2015) (amendments post-motion for summary judgment scrutiny)
Overseas Inns S.A. P.A. v. United States, 911 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1990) (motions for summary judgment do not bar amendments)