Jarrett A. Green v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. et al

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHASE BANK USA, N.A.S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT 15 . Chase shall file the third-party complaint against Zaslavsky no later than 7 days from the date of this Order by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 8/28/2014 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5

United States District Court
Central District of California

6
7
8
9

JARRET A. GREEN,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01703-ODW(JEMx)

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

v.

11
12

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;

CHASE BANK USA, N.A.’S

13

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; PAUL

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

14

SCHWAB; KARI JONES; DOES 1–10,

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT [15]

15

inclusive,
Defendants.

16
17

This action arises out of a failed partnership between two lawyers, Plaintiff

18

Jarret A. Green and Neal S. Zaslavsky. After the partnership dissolved, Green alleges

19

that Zaslavsky committed fraud and embezzlement by using the dissolved

20

partnership’s credit cards for personal expenses including a lavish trip to Hawaii.

21

Defendants enter the picture by allegedly failing to detect and halt the fraudulent

22

credit-card activity. The Complaint contains numerous claims against Defendants

23

including, but not limited to, state-law claims for fraud and intentional infliction of

24

emotional distress and federal claims for violations of the Truth in Lending Act and

25

Bank Secrecy Act. (See ECF No. 1, Ex. A.)

26

Notably, Green has not brought claims against Zaslavsky in this action. But

27

Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A.1 (“Chase”) wants Zaslavsky brought in by seeking

28

1

Chase was erroneously sued as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

1

leave to file a third-party complaint for equitable indemnity and declaratory relief.

2

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Chase’s unopposed Motion for

3

Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint.2 (ECF No. 15.)

4

Third-party practice is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14. “A

5

defending party may, as a third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a

6

nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.” Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 14(a)(1). It is not sufficient that a third-party claim is related or arises out of

8

the same set of facts. United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 452

9

(9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1071 (1984). A “third-party claim may be

10

asserted only when the third party’s liability is in some way dependent on the outcome

11

of the main claim and the third party’s liability is secondary or derivative.” Id.

12

(emphasis added); see also Stewart v. Am. Int’l Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 199–200

13

(9th Cir. 1988); Krainski v. Mill, 356 Fed. Appx. 951, 952 (9th Cir. 2009). The

14

decision to permit the impleader of a third-party defendant rests within the sound

15

discretion of the trial court. Sw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Rozay’s Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777

16

(9th Cir. 1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 advisory committee notes.

17

The Court finds that impleader of Zaslavsky is proper under Rule 14. As Chase

18

points out, Zaslavsky’s alleged fraud and embezzlement triggered all of the events that

19

Green alleges caused him harm. Moroever, Chase limits its third-party complaint to

20

claims for equitable indemnity and declaratory relief, requesting to transfer all or

21

some of its potential liability for damages to Zaslavsky. Since Chase does not seek

22

additional relief from Zaslavsky, the third-party action is entirely dependent on the

23

outcome of the present lawsuit, and thus impleader is appropriate.

24

Moreover, impleader is unlikely to prejudice any of the existing parties to the

25

suit as the Motion is unopposed and both Green and Chase will need to subpoena and

26

depose Zaslavsky for this case. Zaslavsky is also likely to be called as a witness at

27
28

2

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

2

1

trial. In addition, impleader will not confuse the issues at trial or cause undue delay.

2

This action is in its early stages, and the facts surrounding Zaslavsky’s liability in the

3

proposed third-party action will clearly overlap with the facts at issue in this action.

4

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Chase’s Motion for Leave to File a Third-

5

Party Complaint. (ECF No. 15.) Chase shall file the third-party complaint against

6

Zaslavsky no later than 7 days from the date of this Order.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

August 28, 2014

10
11
12

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3