DECISION AND ORDER This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), for all pretrial matters. Dkt. #6. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, County of Erie, on December 1, 2017. Dkt. #1. Defendant, Allegheny Technologies, Inc., (“ATI”), removed the action based on diversity of citizenship in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1441(b). Dkt. #1. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on November 17, 2015, he was performing work for Strom Engineering Corporation in the furnace room of ATI’s production facility in Lockport, New York, when one of ATI’s managers instructed him to open a furnace valve that was connected to a pipe containing scalding hot liquid. Dkt. #1-2. When plaintiff complied with the instructions and opened the valve, he sustained severe, disfiguring and permanent burns and nerve injury to a substantial portion of his body. Dkt. #1-2. ATI answered plaintiff’s complaint on January 2, 2018. Dkt. #4. On January 16, 2018, ATI commenced a third-party action against Strom Engineering Corporation (“Strom”), alleging that ATI and Strom were parties to a service agreement wherein Strom provided temporary employment services to ATI, including at the Lockport, New York facility. Dkt. #8. ATI alleges that the agreement provides that Strom will indemnify ATI for any willful misconduct or negligence by Strom. Dkt. #8. ATI alleges that the injuries sustained by plaintiff were caused by Strom’s failure to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OSHA”), and/or Strom’s negligent or willful misconduct. Dkt. #8. On March 14, 2018, Strom answered the third-party complaint and asserted a counterclaim seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that ATI is obligated to indemnify Strom pursuant to the service agreement and common law. Dkt. #18. Strom alleges that ATI directed and supervised plaintiff at the Lockport facility and that ATI’s investigation of the accident did not reveal that Strom caused or contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. Dkt. #18. Currently before the Court is ATI’s motion to amend its answer to assert as an affirmative defense that plaintiff’s sole and exclusive remedy is that provided by the Workers’ Compensation Law of New York (Dkt. #35), and plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add TDY Industries, LLC, as a defendant. Dkt. #37. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Complaint Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint seeks to add TDY Industries, LLC, as a defendant in this action, and to allow the claims against TDY to relate back to the filing of the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes. Dkt. #37-9. The proposed amended complaint alleges that TDY is a wholly owned subsidiary of ATI and does business under the name ATI Specialty Materials, operating under the direct supervision and control of ATI. Dkt. #37-9,
