IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

ZENITH ENERGY TERMINALS 

JOLIET HOLDINGS LLC, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

 

CENTERPOINT PROPERTIES TRUST,

 

 Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) C.A. No.: N19C-10-054 EMD CCLD

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Upon Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer to Assert Counterclaim

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer to Assert 

Counterclaim (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant CenterPoint Properties Trust (“CenterPoint”); 

Plaintiffs Zenith Energy Terminals Joliet Holdings LLC and Joliet Bulk, Barge & Rail LLC’s 

Opposition to CenterPoint Properties Trust’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer to 

Assert Counterclaim (the “Opposition”) filed by Plaintiffs Zenith Energy Terminals Joliet 

Holdings LLC and Joliet Bulk, Barge & Rail LLC1(collectively, “Plaintiffs”); the letter dated 

October 25, 2021 from F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq., to the Honorable Eric M. Davis; the letter 

dated October 26, 2021 from Christopher Viceconte, Esq., to the Honorable Eric M. Davis; the 

arguments made at the hearing held on October 18, 2021 (the “Hearing”); the entire docket of 

this civil proceeding, 

1. The standard of review on a motion for leave to file an amended complaint is 

well-settled. Superior Court Civil Rule 13(f) states that “[w]hen a pleader fails to set up a 

counterclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, the 

1

Joliet Bulk, Barge & Rail will be individually referred to as “JBBR.”
2

pleader may by leave of court set up the counterclaim by amendment.”2 Superior Court Civil 

Rule 15(a) provides that for an amendment to the pleadings, “a party may amend the party's 

pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party...and leave shall be 

freely given when justice so requires.”3 Delaware Courts generally grant motions to amend 

liberally, but it is not automatic.4 The Court may deny an amendment when there is evidence of 

undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 

deficiencies, or prejudice.5 The Court also considers the proposed amendment’s impact on a 

scheduled trial date.6

2. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 7, 2019.7 CenterPoint moved to 

dismiss the Complaint on November 19, 2019.8 The Court held a hearing on the motion to 

dismiss on January 28, 2020.9 At the conclusion of the January 28, 2020 hearing, the Court 

denied the motion to dismiss.10 

3. On February 21, 2020, CenterPoint filed its Answer.11 CenterPoint did not assert 

any counterclaims as part of its Answer. In the Answer, CenterPoint addresses the issue of 

JBBR and the Final Completion Certificate; however, CenterPoint does not contend that JBBR’s 

failure to issue the Final Completion Certificate constituted an actionable contract or tort cause 

2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 13(f).

3 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(a).

4 See, e.g., Fulton Bank, N.A. v. River Rock, LLC, 2018 WL 3854099 (Del. Super. Aug. 13, 2018) (denying motion 

to amend under Civil Rule 13(f) and/or Rule 15(a)); Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 2010 WL 

59930, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 19, 2010) (Parkins, J.).

5 Hess v. Carmine, 396 A.2d 173, 177 (Del. Super. 1978).

6 See, e.g., Spady v. Keen, 2006 WL 2559853, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 25, 2006).

7 D.I. No. 1.

8 D.I. No. 9.

9 D.I. No. 25.

10 D.I. No. 27.

11 D.I. No. 28.
3

of action.12 CenterPoint did not assert an affirmative defense based on a material breach by 

Plaintiffs. CenterPoint did “reserve” its right to amend the Answer “as this action progresses.”13 

4. On August 27, 2021, Plaintiffs moved to amend the Complaint.14 Plaintiffs 

proposed amendments were minor—no new causes of action, no additional facts. Plaintiffs 

sought to amend the Complaint to add, what Plaintiffs contend, is a copy of the “Description of 

Work and Services” (Ex. G) that was part of the Ragnar Contract. Plaintiffs asserted that when 

they filed the Complaint, they attached the Ragnar Contract but did not append the Description 

of Work and Services. CenterPoint opposed the motion to amend.15 The Court granted the 

motion to amend without a hearing.16 Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on September 10, 

2021.17 

5. On September 24, 2021, CenterPoint filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses 

to Amended Complaint (the “Amended Answer”). The Amended Answer does not change 

CenterPoint’s answers to the Amended Complaint’s factual allegations regarding the Final 

Completion Certificate.18 CenterPoint makes no factual response that the Certificate of 

Completion was wrongfully withheld by JBBR. CenterPoint does add an additional affirmative 

defense, Seventh Affirmative Defense, that contends that Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or 

in part, because JBBR materially breached its obligations under “Construction Management 

Agreement when it withheld, conditioned and delayed issuance of the Final Completion 

Certificate.”19

12 See, e.g., Ans. at 15-17, 19-20 and 26-27.

13 Id. at 30.

14 D.I. No. 86.

15 D.I. No. 87.

16 D.I. No. 88.

17 D.I. No. 89.

18 See. e.g., Am. Ans. at 15-17, 19-20 and 26-27.

19 Id. at 30-31.
4

6. On September 24, 2021, CenterPoint filed the Motion.

20

 The Motion seeks to 

amend the Amended Answer to assert a breach of contract counterclaim. The proposed 

counterclaim asserts a claim (the “Proposed Counterclaim”) against Plaintiffs because JBBR 

purportedly “breached its obligations under the Construction Management Agreement when it 

unreasonably withheld, conditioned and delayed issuance of the Final Completion Certificate.”21

7. The Proposed Counterclaim arises out of the transaction and occurrence that is the 

basis of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Accordingly, the Proposed Counterclaim is a compulsory 

counterclaim and should have been first asserted with the Answer on February 21, 2020.22

8. CenterPoint contends that the Court should grant the Motion because: (i) 

CenterPoint just learned of “new” facts underlying the Proposed Counterclaim on September 22, 

2021; and (ii) Plaintiffs will not suffer any prejudice. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. Plaintiffs 

contend CenterPoint cannot satisfy Civil Rule 13(f). In addition, Plaintiffs argue that the 

Proposed Counterclaim is futile because it is barred by the statute of limitations.

9. The Court is troubled by the lateness of the Proposed Counterclaim. CenterPoint 

is contending that JBBR first breached the Construction Contract on or about October 29, 2015 

when JBBR improperly withheld consent to the issuance of the Final Completion Certificate.23 

JBBR purportedly continued this conduct for several months/years.24 In fact, Ragnar sued JBBR 

over a similar issue on January 23, 2017—more than three years before CenterPoint filed its 

original Answer.

20 D.I. No. 91.

21 Mot. at ¶ 13.

22 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 13(a).

23 Mot. Ex. A at 34-36.

24 Id.
5

10. The Court notes that CenterPoint does not make a claim of excusable neglect, 

oversight or inadvertence. Instead, CenterPoint contends that new evidence was discovered in a 

deposition held on September 22, 2021 that supports the Proposed Counterclaim. The Court has 

difficulty with this argument given that Ragnar knew enough to assert a similar claim against 

JBBR in early 2017.

11. The Court will follow the reasoning in Fulton Bank, N.A. v. River Rock, LLC.

25

 

In Fulton, the Court denied leave to amend the pleadings to add a compulsory counterclaim 

because the proposed counterclaim was untimely.26 The defendant in Fulton seemingly 

possessed facts to support its proposed counterclaim but failed to assert the claim until six 

months after the filing of defendant’s answer. The Court held that this unexcused delay meant 

the request to amend was untimely under either Civil Rule 13(f) or Civil Rule 15.27 

12. Here, CenterPoint knew or should have known of the facts underlying the 

Proposed Counterclaim no later than January 23, 2017. Under Civil Rule 13(a), CenterPoint 

needed to assert the Proposed Counterclaim with its Answer filed on February 21, 2020. Instead, 

CenterPoint chose to wait another twenty months before seeking relief under Civil Rule 13(f). 

CenterPoint seems to entirely rely on the “when justice so requires” standard. Under the 

circumstances here, the Court finds that CenterPoint cannot meet that standard.

25 2018 WL 3854099 (Del. Super. Aug. 13, 2018)

26 Id. at *1.

27 Id. at *3.
6

13. The Court DENIES the Motion for failing to meet the standards under either 

Civil Rule 13(f) or Civil Rule 15(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: January 27, 2022

Wilmington, Delaware

/s/ Eric M. Davis

Eric M. Davis, Judge

cc: File&ServeXpress