Parker v. John Moriarty & Associates
249 F. Supp. 3d 507
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Johnnie Parker (and spouse) sued general contractor John Moriarty & Associates of Virginia LLC (JMAV) after Parker, an employee of subcontractor Strittmatter Metro, LLC (Strittmatter), alleged injury from exposure to toxic chemicals during excavation at the Apollo H Street project.
- JMAV filed third-party claims against Strittmatter for contractual indemnification and breach; Strittmatter filed a fourth-party complaint against Environmental Consultants and Contractors, Inc. (ECC).
- ECC had contracted with the project owner to provide environmental services and was later added as a defendant by plaintiffs.
- ECC moved for leave to amend its answer to add counterclaims against Strittmatter and cross-claims against JMAV (negligence, negligent misrepresentation, indemnity/contribution). JMAV separately sought leave to amend its third-party complaint to add a common-law indemnity claim against Strittmatter.
- Strittmatter opposed both motions mainly on futility grounds (worker’s compensation exclusivity and lack of basis for indemnity); JMAV did not oppose ECC’s motion. The court granted both motions, allowing ECC and JMAV to file their proposed amendments and ordering responses and continued discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ECC should be allowed to amend its answer to add counterclaims/cross-claims against Strittmatter and JMAV | ECC: proposed claims arise from independent duties and are timely; amendment appropriate under Rule 15 | Strittmatter: amendment is futile because employer exclusivity (workers’ comp) bars third-party claims and ECC cannot state viable claims | Court granted leave to amend—no undue delay/prejudice/bad faith; futility not shown at dismissal-stage; claims may proceed to be tested later |
| Whether JMAV may amend its third-party complaint to add a common-law indemnity claim against Strittmatter | JMAV: alleges special, ongoing contractual relationship and independent duties supporting implied/common-law indemnity | Strittmatter: amendment untimely and futile because indemnity arises only from subcontract (no common-law claim) | Court granted leave—timely under scheduling order; no prejudice/bad faith; futility not established at pleading stage |
| Whether workers’ compensation exclusivity bars a third-party indemnity claim by ECC or JMAV against Strittmatter | Plaintiffs: (implied) employees may pursue third-party tort claims; ECC/JMAV rely on independent duties distinct from employee’s remedy | Strittmatter: exclusivity precludes employer liability and thus precludes indemnity claims tied to employee injury | Court: exclusivity does not categorically bar third-party implied indemnity claims; indemnity may exist where independent duties/special relationship are alleged; not resolved on motion to amend |
| Whether leave to amend is barred by undue delay, prejudice, or bad faith | ECC/JMAV: amendments timely, no prejudice, discovery ongoing | Strittmatter: asserted delay/untimeliness for JMAV and prejudice/futility for both | Court: no undue delay, prejudice, or bad faith found; Rule 15 factors favor granting leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent strong reasons)
- Howard Univ. v. Good Food Servs., Inc., 608 A.2d 116 (D.C. 1992) (implied indemnity may arise from special ongoing relationships and independent duties)
- Myco, Inc. v. Super Concrete Co., 565 A.2d 293 (D.C. 1989) (workers’ compensation exclusivity does not bar all third-party claims; limits on indemnity explained)
- Willoughby v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 100 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (district court discretion in granting leave to amend)
- In re Interbank Funding Corp. Sec. Litig., 629 F.3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (amendment is futile if amended pleading would not survive a motion to dismiss)