IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

Timothy Sweeney and Alaina Sweeney, ) ) Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-02686-JMC Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) BI-LO, LLC, ) ) Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Waterstone Southeast Portfolio, LLC, ) ) Third-Party Defendant. ) ____________________________________) This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant BI-LO’s (“Defendant”) unopposed Motion to Sever the Third-Party Claim (ECF No. 28). After Plaintiffs Timothy Sweeney and Alaina Sweeney (“Plaintiffs”) asserted claims against Defendant for negligence and loss of consortium, Defendant filed a third-party claim against Third-Party Defendant Waterstone Southeast Portfolio, LCC (“Third-Party Defendant”) for indemnity. (ECF Nos. 1, 8.) Before the Motion to Sever was filed, Third-Party Defendant was in default on the third-party claim. (ECF No. 23.) However, the default was later withdrawn and the third-party action was dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiffs added Third-Party Defendant as a direct defendant in their action. (ECF Nos. 53, 29.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 provides that the court may “sever any claim against a party.” Under Rule 21, “a court has virtually unfettered discretion in determining whether or not severance is appropriate.” Grayson Consulting, Inc. v. Cathcart, No. 2:07-cv-02992-DCN,

, at *2 (D.S.C. Apr. 8, 2014) (citing 17th St. Assocs., LLP v. Markel Int’l Ins. Co. Ltd.,

, 604 n.9 (E.D. Va. 2005)). Four factors are considered in evaluating severance under Rule 21: (1) whether the issues sought to be severed are significantly different from one another; (2) whether the issues require different witnesses and evidence; (3) whether the party opposing severance will be prejudiced; and (4) whether the party requesting severance will be prejudiced if the claims are not severed. Equal Rights Ctr. v. Equity Residential,

(D. Md. 2007). Although the posture of the parties has changed since the Motion to Sever was filed, the court finds that the third-party claim should be severed. Since the third-party claim has been dismissed and Third-Party Defendant has been added as a direct defendant in Plaintiffs’ action, it is ineffectual and duplicative to keep the third-party claim tied to Plaintiffs’ action. Plaintiffs also consent to the severance of Third-Party Defendant from this action. (ECF No. 28.) Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Sever (ECF No. 28). IT IS SO ORDERED. ' it Mechelle. Childe United States District Judge August 11, 2020 Columbia, South Carolina