## Facts

- Bernardo Pena managed Pena Real Estate Investments, LLC (Pena Real Estate).
- Maria Kunhardt managed One Hardt, LLC (One Hardt) and was listed in Massachusetts filings as the designated person to execute real-estate contracts for One Hardt.
- Drimel A. Reyes, Kunhardt’s son, was a member of One Hardt.
- Pena Real Estate negotiated with Reyes to buy several properties from One Hardt; Kunhardt allegedly knew of the negotiations and was present nearby during discussions.
- Pena Real Estate and Reyes executed a purchase-and-sale agreement for the properties, and Pena Real Estate deposited $5,000 in earnest money.
- Before closing, One Hardt sold the properties to another buyer, and Pena Real Estate sued One Hardt and Reyes for breach of contract and related claims.
- The case began in Massachusetts state court and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Pena Real Estate later filed an amended complaint.
- The court entered a scheduling order setting a deadline for motions to add parties or amend pleadings; after defendants requested an extension tied to resolution of their motions to dismiss, the amended deadline became 30 days after the court ruled—July 14, 2023.
- After that deadline passed, Reyes (Aug. 9, 2023) and One Hardt (Aug. 18, 2023) filed third-party complaints against attorney Arthur J. Broadhurst, alleging he drafted the purchase-and-sale agreement without proper authorization and knew Reyes lacked authority; Broadhurst was also One Hardt’s registered agent at the time.
- Broadhurst moved to dismiss the third-party complaints as untimely and argued any claims against him should proceed, if at all, in a separate action.

## Issues

1. Whether Broadhurst’s filing styled as a motion to dismiss should be treated as a Rule 14(a)(4) motion to strike the third-party complaints.
2. Whether the third-party complaints, filed after the court-ordered amendment/add-parties deadline, should be struck because the third-party plaintiffs did not timely seek to modify the schedule or show good cause.

## Decision

- The court treated Broadhurst’s motion as a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(4).
- The court held the third-party complaints were untimely under the scheduling order as extended.
- The court granted the motion and struck both third-party complaints, leaving any claims against Broadhurst to be pursued, if at all, in a separate lawsuit.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(4) permits a third-party defendant to move to strike a third-party claim (or seek severance), and courts may classify a motion based on what it requests rather than its caption.
- A Rule 16 scheduling order controls the timing for adding parties and new claims; once set, it may be changed only on a showing of good cause, which focuses primarily on the moving party’s diligence.
- When a party files an impleader complaint after the amendment/add-parties deadline without first obtaining leave or a schedule modification, the court may strike the pleading to preserve orderly case administration and avoid delay.

## Conclusion

The court struck One Hardt’s and Reyes’s third-party complaints against attorney Broadhurst because they were filed after the court-ordered deadline for adding parties and asserting new claims, and the third-party plaintiffs did not obtain a timely modification of the schedule or show good cause for the late impleader; any claims against Broadhurst would need to be brought separately.


Pena Real Estate Investments, LLC v. One Hardt, LLC, 2023 WL 3997038 (2023)