Parker v. John Moriarty & Associates, 320 F.R.D. 95

Background

Plaintiffs Johnnie Parker and Starrelette Gail Jones‑Parker sued general contractor John Moriarty & Associates of Virginia LLC (JMAV) for negligence after Parker, an employee of subcontractor Strittmatter Metro, was allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals while excavating at the Apollo H Street construction site.
JMAV filed a third‑party complaint against Strittmatter; Strittmatter filed a fourth‑party complaint against Environmental Consultants and Contractors, Inc. (ECC) alleging negligence and related claims.
ECC moved to dismiss Strittmatter’s fourth‑party complaint; the Court denied ECC’s motion on December 14, 2016.
Plaintiffs then moved for leave to amend their complaint to add ECC as a defendant and assert negligence claims directly against ECC. The motion was filed within the deadline set by a subsequent Scheduling Order.
ECC opposed, arguing undue delay and contending Plaintiffs had previously signaled they would not name ECC; Plaintiffs said they delayed until the dismissal motion was resolved to conserve resources and because they reasonably expected dismissal might follow.
The Court granted leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), finding no prejudice, futility, or bad faith, and concluded the amendment was timely and appropriate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend should be granted to add ECC as a defendant	Plaintiffs argued the amendment asserts negligence claims substantially similar to Strittmatter’s allegations and was timely after the Court denied ECC’s motion to dismiss; amendment promotes judicial economy	ECC argued Plaintiffs unduly delayed, had prior notice of ECC’s role, and thus amendment should be denied	Granted: Court exercised discretion under Rule 15 and allowed amendment; no colorable basis to deny
Whether Plaintiffs’ timing constituted undue delay	Plaintiffs contended they reasonably delayed until the Court resolved ECC’s dismissal motion to avoid unnecessary litigation and filed within the Court’s amended deadline	ECC pointed to earlier disclosures and admissions (e.g., ECC’s air testing role) and plaintiffs’ prior statements as evidence of delay	Denied: Court found Plaintiffs sought amendment 34 days after denial of dismissal, acted with diligence, and Scheduling Order permitted amendment
Whether amendment would be futile, prejudicial, or in bad faith	Plaintiffs asserted claims were viable and not duplicative; amendment would not prejudice ECC because ECC is already party to the case and subject to discovery	ECC contended potential prejudice and implied futility but did not present substantive showing	Denied: Court found ECC failed to show prejudice, futility, or bad faith; preliminary review did not show futility
Whether Rule 16(b) (scheduling order modification) bars amendment	Plaintiffs noted they were not seeking modification of the original scheduling order and that the Court later set a new deadline to amend pleadings	ECC argued Plaintiffs should have sought leave earlier and Rule 16(b) good‑cause standard applies	Court treated motion under Rule 15 because the parties obtained an amended Scheduling Order allowing amendment; Rule 16 did not bar amendment

Key Cases Cited

Willoughby v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 100 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (district court has discretion on leave to amend; leave should be freely given)
Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (factors for assessing amendment include undue delay, prejudice, futility, bad faith, and prior amendments)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (leave to amend should generally be granted absent good reason)
In re Interbank Funding Corp. Sec. Litig., 629 F.3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (denial appropriate if proposed amendment would not survive a motion to dismiss)
Smith v. Cafe Asia, 598 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2009) (courts consider relation of proposed amendment to original complaint to evaluate undue delay)
Abdullah v. Washington, 530 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2008) (party opposing amendment bears burden to show a colorable basis to deny leave)