Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Southwest Traders Incorporated
Filing
22
ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM by Judge Justin L. Quackenbush: (see document image for further details). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Southwest's Motion for Leave 18 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court grants leave fo r Southwest to assert the counterclaims against Liberty in Counts I through IX of its proposed Counterclaim. The court denies leave to join third-party Sullivan Curtis. 2. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Southwest shall file its C ounterclaim against Liberty, which shall not include any claims against Sullivan Curtis, and shall not include any claims not contained in the proposed amendment. (ECF No. 18, Ex. A). 3. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the Counterclaim, Liberty shall Answer the Counterclaim or file other responsive pleading or motion. 4. No later than May 24, 2013, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report, as discussed supra, containing their positions on the matter being set for jury trial and whether an extension of the current cut-off and trial dates is required. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ad)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP.,
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
NO. ED CV-12-02151-JLQ
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE
COUNTERCLAIM
vs.
SOUTHWEST TRADERS INCORP.,
11
Defendant.
12
13
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Southwest Traders Incorporated
14
("Southwest") Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff Liberty
15
Insurance Corporation ("Liberty") has filed an Opposition Brief (ECF No. 20) and
16
Southwest has filed a Reply (ECF No. 21).
17
I. Introduction/Procedural History
18
Liberty initiated this action by filing a Complaint on December 6, 2012. The
19
Complaint is four pages long and contains one claim for breach of an insurance policy,
20
that breach being the alleged failure to pay a retrospective premium adjustment.
21
Southwest answered the Complaint on January 15, 2013. The Answer contained eight
22
affirmative defenses, but did not assert any counterclaims.
23
On February 21, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Status Report (ECF No. 10), as was
24
required by the court in advance of the Scheduling Conference. That Status Report stated
25
that the parties believed that the following was the principal factual issue in the case:
26
"Whether Southwest Traders owes retrospective premiums and other amounts to Liberty
27
under the workers' compensation policy that it issued, and, if so, in what amount." (ECF
28
No. 10, p. 3). The Status Report stated that Southwest was evaluating whether to join
ORDER - 1
1
additional parties. The parties jointly proposed a trial date of December 11, 2013.
2
The court held a Scheduling Conference on March 7, 2013, and issued a
3
Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 19). The Scheduling Order provided that any motion to
4
amend pleadings or add named parties shall be served no later than April 5, 2013. It also
5
set this matter for bench trial on December 11, 2013, as no demand had been made for a
6
jury trial. On April 5, 2013, Southwest filed the Motion for Leave to file a Counterclaim
7
and in the proposed Counterclaim demands a trial by jury.
8
II. Standard for Leave to Amend
9
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), leave of court is required for Southwest's proposed
10
amendment. The court "should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P.
11
15(a)(2). Whether to grant such leave, rests in the discretion of the court. Foman v.
12
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The court may deny leave to amend where there has
13
been undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, or where the
14
amendment would be futile. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007
15
(9th Cir. 2009).
16
III. Discussion
17
Southwest's proposed Counterclaim contains 16 counts, and is 27-pages long. It is
18
not simply a Counterclaim, but rather seeks to add an additional party to this litigation--
19
Sullivan Curtis Monroe Insurance Services, LLC ("Sullivan Curtis"), an insurance broker.
20
Liberty opposes the proposed amendment, both as to the counterclaims against Liberty,
21
and the addition of Sullivan Curtis.
22
A. The Claims Against Sullivan Curtis
23
Seven of the sixteen claims are asserted against Sullivan Curtis. Southwest
24
contends that the proposed Counterclaim "seeks to resolve issues arising from the same
25
contract alleged in Liberty's Complaint and to resolve issues in a related auto policy."
26
(ECF No. 18, p. 3). Southwest's Motion omits nearly any mention of the fact that
27
Southwest is seeking to bring another party into this action. There is one brief mention of
28
"theories of relief....against Southwest's insurance broker", but Sullivan Curtis is not even
ORDER - 2
1
mentioned by name in the Motion. Instead, Sullivan Curtis is merely included in the
2
proposed Counterclaim (ECF No. 18, Ex. A). The claim against Sullivan Curtis is not in
3
fact a counterclaim, but would rather be a claim against a third-party.
4
A defending party, such as Southwest, may assert a claim against a third-party who
5
is or may be liable to Southwest for all or part of the claim against it. However, in order
6
to do so, Southwest must "obtain the court's leave if it files the third-party complaint
7
more than 14 days after serving its original answer." Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a)(1). Liberty
8
argues that Southwest failed to properly seek leave of court to add a third-party because
9
Southwest only sought leave to assert counterclaims. As a technical matter, the court
10
agrees that Southwest did not properly seek leave to file a third-party complaint against
11
Sullivan Curtis. Southwest's Motion fails to mention Sullivan Curtis and fails to cite to
12
Rule 14. Southwest in its Reply addresses for the first time Rule 14 and acknowledges
13
that whether to allow a third-party defendant to be impleaded is within the discretion of
14
this court.
15
Additionally, Southwest's claim is not a proper third-party claim. "A third-party
16
claim may be asserted only when the third party's liability is in some way dependent on
17
the outcome of the main claim and is secondary or derivative thereto." Stewart v.
18
American Int. Oil & Gas, 845 F.2d 196, 199 (9th Cir. 1988). The Ninth Circuit further
19
stated that the "crucial characteristic" of a Rule 14 claim is that a "defendant is attempting
20
to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted against him by the original
21
plaintiff." Id. at 200. Southwest is not asserting that Sullivan Curtis is actually the party
22
liable to Liberty for breach of contract/unpaid premiums. Rather, Southwest alleges that
23
it had a Professional Services Agreement with Sullivan Curtis and that Sullivan Curtis
24
provided poor advice about coverage proposals, and failed to properly service policies,
25
etc. Those claims need not be asserted in this lawsuit. "It is not sufficient that the third-
26
party claim is a related-claim; the claim must be derivatively based on the original
27
plaintiff's claim." Zero Tolerance Entertainment v. Ferguson, 254 F.R.D. 123, 126 (C.D.
28
Cal. 2008). Southwest's request for leave to amend to assert third-party claims against
ORDER - 3
1
Sullivan Curtis is DENIED.
2
B. Counterclaims Against Liberty
3
Liberty also opposes leave to amend to add counterclaims against it, arguing that
4
Southwest has unduly delayed those claims. Liberty argues that as Southwest had not, at
5
the time of filing the Motion, conducted any discovery, Southwest therefore knew of the
6
basis for the Counterclaim since the inception of this suit. Although it appears that
7
Southwest could have moved more promptly in seeking amendment, the court does not
8
find undue delay where the Motion was filed by the deadline set in the Scheduling Order.
9
Liberty argues it will suffer unfair prejudice if the Counterclaim is allowed because
10
the proposed Counterclaim would "radically shift" the nature of this case and require an
11
"entirely new course of defense." (ECF No. 20, p. 9). Liberty argues it will be prejudiced
12
by having to defend all these new claims under the relatively short time frame that was
13
set for the preparation and trial of a one-count breach of contract claim. There is some
14
merit to Liberty's argument. Southwest seeks to expand this action by adding an
15
additional sixteen counts which involve additional entities and additional contracts. As
16
discussed supra, in an exercise of this court's discretion, it has not granted leave to add
17
the third-party claims against Sullivan Curtis.
18
However, a party is required to bring as a compulsory counterclaim a claim that
19
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and does not require the adding of
20
another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(a)(1).
21
Nine of the sixteen counts in the proposed Counterclaim are asserted against Liberty.
22
Counts I and II assert breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing
23
arising out of the same Worker's Compensation Policy at issue in the Complaint. The
24
court grants leave for Liberty to assert those claims. Counts III and IV relate to a
25
different policy of insurance, an Auto Policy, and therefore are not compulsory
26
counterclaims. However, the court may allow such claims as permissive counterclaims.
27
Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(b).
28
Counts V and VI are tort claims related at least in part to the Worker's
ORDER - 4
1
Compensation Policy. Liberty argues that Southwest fails to state a claim in Counts V
2
and VI. Such arguments can be better addressed after Liberty files an Answer or
3
responsive motion to the amended pleading. Count VII pertains to the Worker's
4
Compensation Policy. Counts VIII and IX are entitled "set off" and "accounting". Set
5
off is likely more appropriately considered an affirmative defense. Southwest may fail to
6
state a claim for an accounting. See Singh v. City of Oakland, 295 Fed.Appx. 118 (9th
7
Cir. 2008)("The necessary prerequisite to the right to maintain a suit for an equitable
8
accounting, like all other equitable remedies, is...the absence of an adequate remedy at
9
law."). Those issues need not be resolved at this time.
10
The court GRANTs Southwest's Motion for Leave to the extent of the nine
11
counterclaims against Liberty.
12
C. Jury Demand
13
The proposed Counterclaim contains a jury demand. No jury demand was made as
14
to the issues in the original Complaint, and this matter is currently set for bench trial. The
15
Counterclaim also includes equitable claims. A party is generally not entitled to a jury
16
trial on a purely equitable claim. See Shubin v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 313 F.2d 250 (9th Cir.
17
1963). Resetting this matter for jury trial, may necessitate a brief extension of the
18
scheduled dates. This matter is currently set for trial in December 2013. The court
19
would consider resetting it for jury trial in February or March 2014, with a corresponding
20
extension of other dates. No later than May 24, 2013, the parties shall confer and file a
21
Joint Status Report including their respective positions concerning which issues may be
22
tried to the jury, and their position as to whether deadlines in the court's Scheduling
23
Order (ECF No. 19) should be extended, and if so, proposed cut-off and trial dates.
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
25
1. Southwest's Motion for Leave (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED IN PART and
26
DENIED IN PART. The court grants leave for Southwest to assert the counterclaims
27
against Liberty in Counts I through IX of its proposed Counterclaim. The court denies
28
leave to join third-party Sullivan Curtis.
ORDER - 5
1
2. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Southwest shall file its
2
Counterclaim against Liberty, which shall not include any claims against Sullivan Curtis,
3
and shall not include any claims not contained in the proposed amendment. (ECF No. 18,
4
Ex. A).
5
6
3. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the Counterclaim, Liberty shall
Answer the Counterclaim or file other responsive pleading or motion.
7
4. No later than May 24, 2013, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report, as
8
discussed supra, containing their positions on the matter being set for jury trial and
9
whether an extension of the current cut-off and trial dates is required.
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and
furnish copies to counsel.
DATED this 1st day of May, 2013.
s/ Justin L. Quackenbush
JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?