will be permitted. Gilpin v. Abraham, 231 F. Supp. 511 (E.D. Pa. 1964).
While Anika's motion to join Maxwell as a third-party defendant came approximately one year after it filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint, we are satisfied that it has not been dilatory or derelict. It was not until Anika learned of the existence of a remnant of plaintiff's dress and was able to obtain possession of it that an investigation could be conducted as to the identity of the manufacturer. Anika moved to join Maxwell as a third-party defendant approximately one month after receiving the above-mentioned piece of cloth. Accordingly, we do not believe that Anika acted dilatorily in seeking to join Maxwell when it did.
Maxwell's contention that it will be prejudiced by the joinder because it will not be able to make full use of pre-trial discovery does not impress us since full discovery is available in this matter.
And now, this 8th day of January, 1971, it is ordered that the motion of Maxwell Industries, Inc., to vacate the Order of October 22, 1970, granting leave to join Maxwell Industries, Inc., as a third-party defendant is denied.
It is further ordered that the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.