Jeffrey Newland v. Imperial River Transport, LLC

Newland · United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2026 · No. 2:24-cv-01258

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants Jeffrey Newland’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint adding Campbell Transportation Company and CTC Liquid Services LLC as defendants. The court rejects the asserted statute-of-limitations and prejudice objections, denies the motions for a sur-reply and extension of the mediation deadline, requires the amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10, and administratively closes the case during a stay.

Holdings

  1. Leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15(a)(2) because Defendant did not show futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice.
  2. The proposed claim for breach of an implied warranty of workmanlike services was not shown to be barred by 46 U.S.C. § 30106 because the claim sounded in contract rather than in a maritime tort.
  3. The amended complaint must comply with Rules 8 and 10 by clearly and separately identifying its causes of action and providing a short and plain statement of the claims; failure to do so could result in dismissal.
  4. Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under § 1927 because the Court found no bad faith by Defendant's counsel.
  5. Defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply was denied because the proposed sur-reply was unnecessary and the Court had declined to impose sanctions.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the complaint to add Campbell Transportation Company and CTC Liquid Services LLC as defendants.
  2. Whether the proposed warranty-of-workmanlike-services claim was futile because the maritime personal-injury statute of limitations in 46 U.S.C. § 30106 allegedly barred it.
  3. Whether Defendant established undue prejudice or undue delay sufficient to defeat the motion to amend.
  4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for responding to Defendant's opposition.
  5. Whether Defendant should be permitted to file a sur-reply.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (19)

  • Graham v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 271 F.R.D. 112, 122 (W.D. Pa. 2010)(followed)
  • Chancellor v. Pottsgrove Sch. Dist., 501 F. Supp. 2d 695, 700 (E.D. Pa. 2007)(followed)
  • Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 175 (3d Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • In re Merck & Co. Sec., Derivative, & ERISA Litig., 493 F.3d 393, 400 (3d Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Chisholm v. UHP Projects, Inc., 205 F.3d 731, 734 (4th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Sanderlin v. Old Dominion Stevedoring Corp., 385 F.2d 79, 81-82 (4th Cir. 1967)(followed)
  • Oglebay Norton Co. v. CSX Corp., 788 F.2d 361, 364-65 (6th Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • United N.Y. Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n v. Rodermond Indus., Inc., 394 F.2d 65, 74-75 (3d Cir. 1968)(followed)
  • Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 488 (3d Cir. 1990)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…