ORDER

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR
CHOICE, INC., a Florida
corporation, EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and PATRICIA
B. WINDLE,
Defendants,

AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR
CHOICE, INC., a Florida
Corporation, EDWARD WINDLE,
and PATRICIA BAIRD-WINDLE, Citizens of Florida,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
SPHERE DRAKE INSURANCE
COMPANY PLC., and WESTCO
CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., FOREIGN BUSINESS ENTITIES,
Third-Party Defendants.

ORDER

This cause came before the Court on Third Party Plaintiffs' Motion & Memorandum for Leave to File Amended Rule Third Party Complaint Against AWCC Declining Insurers and Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc- No. 144, filed April 20, 1999) and Third Party Defendants' Response to Third Party Plaintiff's [sic] Motion for Leave to File Amended Rule 14 Third Party Complaint and Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 145, filed May 10, 1999).

The Third Party Plaintiffs in this case seek leave to file an Amended Third Party Complaint under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has descretion under Rule 14 to decide whether or not to allow a third party to be impleaded into a case. See 3 James Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 14.20 [1] (3rd ed. 1998) ("[a] court may refuse to allow or retain [a] third-party claim . . ."); see also Ahern v. Gaussoin, 104 F.R.D. 37, 41-42 (D. Or. 1984 (dismissing third party complaint where court found than permitting impleader would delay and confuse the litigation); In re "Aqent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 544 F.Supp. 808, 811 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (denying motion for leave to implead manufacturers because it would confuse already complex litigation). In this case, the Court has already ruled that summary judgment should be granted in favor of the Defendants on the Plaintiff's Complaint. The Third Party Plaintiffs assert that they are seeking a finding of bad faith on the part of the Third Party Defendants for failure to defend them in this suit. (Doc. NO. 144 at 4). The Court finds that the Third Party Complaint would unnecessarily complicate and extend this case. Accordingly, the Court declines to allow the Third Party Plaintiffs to file an Amended Third Party Complaint in this case.

Based on the foregoing, the Court rules as follows:

1) Third Party Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Rule 14 Third Party Complaint Aqainst AWCC Declining Insurers (Doc. No. 144) is DENIED without prejudice to the institution of a separately filed lawsuit by the Third Party Plaintiffs on the claim(s) asserted against the Third Party Defendants.

2) Third Party Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 144 is DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this 25th day of May, 1999.

PATRICIA C. FAWSETT <signed>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE