Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Varrasso et al
Filing
68
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 10/18/2012 GRANTING defendants' 61 Motion for Leave to file Third-Party Complaint. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
13
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION as Receiver for
INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.,
14
15
16
NO. CIV. 2:11-2628 WBS CKD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
v.
20
RICHARD K. VARRASSO doing
business as Richard Varrasso
and Associates and
AppraisalTrust.com, an
individual; PREMIER VALLEY,
INC. doing business as CENTURY
21 M&M ASSOCIATES, a
California corporation; and
KAREN BHATTI, an individual,
21
Defendants.
17
18
19
/
22
23
24
----oo0oo---Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
25
(“FDIC”) as Receiver for Indymac Bank, F.S.B. (“Indymac”) brought
26
this action against defendants Richard K. Varrasso, doing
27
business as Richard Varrasso and Associates and
28
AppraisalTrust.com, Premier Valley, Inc. (“Premier Valley”),
1
1
doing business as Century 21 M&M Associates, and Karen Bhatti,
2
arising out of defendants’ allegedly wrongful misrepresentations
3
regarding the purchase of two residential properties.
4
before the court is defendants’ Bhatti and Premier Valley’s
5
motion for leave to file a third-party complaint pursuant to
6
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a).
7
I.
(Docket No. 61.)
Factual and Procedural Background
8
9
Presently
Plaintiff FDIC is a government entity appointed by the
Office of Thrift Supervision to act as Receiver for IndyMac
10
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(B).
11
legal claims have accordingly been retained by or transferred to
12
the FDIC.
13
(Compl. ¶ 1.)
IndyMac’s
(Id.)
In its Complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants
14
Bhatti and Premier Valley negligently provided an incorrect
15
purchase price of $499,000 for the property located at 2009 Saint
16
Theresa Way in Modesto, California (“Property”).
17
40.)
18
funded and subsequently sold to Indymac two mortgages totaling
19
$499,000 for the Property (a first mortgage of $399,200 and a
20
second mortgage of $99,800).
21
of its claims against defendants Bhatti and Premier Valley: a
22
state law claim of negligence and a state law claim of negligent
23
misrepresentation.
24
several causes of action against defendant Varrasso, who
25
appraised the Property and an additional property, for negligent
26
misrepresentation and breach of contract.
27
28
(Id. ¶¶ 36,
Plaintiff alleges that Kay-Co Investments, Inc., then
(Id. ¶ 11.)
(Id. ¶¶ 33-44.)
Plaintiff brings two
Plaintiff also asserts
(Id. ¶¶ 17-32, 45-61.)
On February 1, 2012, the court issued a scheduling
order, (Docket No. 39), in which it set that day as the deadline
2
1
to request leave to file amended pleadings or to add parties.
2
February 28, 2012, defendants Bhatti and Premier Valley filed an
3
answer to plaintiff’s complaint.
4
17, 2012, they filed the instant motion for leave to file a
5
third-party complaint against Sophie Reisiyannejad aka Sophie
6
Nejad; Western Investment Network, Inc., doing business as Era
7
the Property Professionals; Anwar Frontan aka Ray Forotan aka
8
Anwar Forotan, individually and doing business as Alpine
9
Mortgage, a business entity form unknown; One Stop Real Estate,
10
Inc., a California corporation; Equal Partners Lending, Inc., a
11
California corporation; Emmanuel Kim; Kay-Co Investments, Inc.,
12
doing business as Pro30 Funding; Marissa Weisbly; and Sylvia
13
Marie.
14
a notice of non-opposition.
15
failed to file an opposition.1
16
II.
On September
On September 24, 2012, plaintiff filed
(Docket No. 62.)
Defendant Varrasso
Discussion
17
18
(Docket No. 61.)
(Docket No. 42.)
On
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) provides in
pertinent part:
19
A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a
20
summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable
21
to it for all or part of the claim against it. But the
22
third-party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court's
23
leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 10
24
days after serving its original answer.
25
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 14(a).
The decision whether to implead a
26
27
28
1
Because oral argument will not be of material
assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs.
E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
3
1
third-party defendant is addressed to the sound discretion of the
2
trial court.
3
777 (9th Cir. 1986).
4
Sw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Rozay’s Transfer, 791 F.2d 769,
The purpose of Rule 14 is to promote judicial
5
efficiency by eliminating the need for the defendant to bring a
6
separate action against a third individual who may be secondarily
7
or derivatively liable to the defendant for all or part of the
8
plaintiff’s original claim.• Sw. Adm’rs, 791 F.2d at 777 (citing
9
6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1442,
10
at 202-03 (1971)).
11
favor of allowing impleader.
12
L.L.C., 166 F.3d 389, 393 (1st Cir. 1999).
13
whether to permit impleader, the court considers prejudice to the
14
original plaintiff, complication of issues at trial, likelihood
15
of trial delay, and timeliness of the motion to implead.
16
v. Mascott, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
17
For this reason, it is construed liberally in
Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio
In determining
Irwin
Bhatti and Premier Valley argue that the negligence
18
alleged against them is not the cause of plaintiff’s alleged
19
damages.
20
the proposed third-party defendants are instead the causes in
21
fact of plaintiff’s alleged damages because the purchaser of the
22
Property, Marissa Weisbly, admits that the purchase was part of a
23
scam, that her loan applications contained fraudulent
24
misrepresentations, and that she never had any intention of
25
making payments on the loan for the Property.
26
Mot. for Leave (“Mem.”) (Docket No. 61) at 2:3-17.)
27
defendants Bhatti and Premier Valley argue that the proposed
28
third-party defendants are liable to them for indemnity for any
They argue that the intentional and fraudulent acts of
4
(Mem. in Supp. of
Therefore,
1
judgment and attorney fees incurred in defending this action.
2
(Mem. at 5:12-15.)
3
Bhatti and Premier Valley argue that plaintiff will not
4
be prejudiced by the third-party complaint because they
5
immediately notified plaintiff’s counsel of the alleged
6
wrongdoing of the proposed third-party defendants as soon as they
7
became aware of it and requested that plaintiff dismiss the
8
action against them.
9
should therefore be of no surprise.
(Id. at 5:17-23.)
The instant request
(Id.)
Furthermore, Bhatti
10
and Premier Valley argue that impleading the third-party
11
defendants will aid development of the issues and evidence at
12
trial because even if the court does not grant this motion, they
13
will be subject to subpoena and will be witnesses trial.
14
5:17-23.)
15
evidenced presented once, rather than presenting the same
16
evidence later in a separate action for indemnity.
(Id. at
17
Trial efficiency will be served by having the
(Id.)
Finally, Bhatti and Premier Valley explain that they
18
did not unduly delay in bringing this motion because they did not
19
possess the information needed to bring their claims until after
20
the deposition of Marissa Weisbly in June 2012.
21
They note that after the deposition their counsel immediately
22
wrote to plaintiff’s counsel requesting that plaintiff dismiss
23
the claims against them or stipulate to allow a third-party
24
complaint.
25
(Id. at 6:8-12.)
In light of the foregoing circumstances, including the
26
fact that plaintiff does not oppose Bhatti and Premier Valley’s
27
motion and defendant Varrasso failed to file any opposition, the
28
court concludes that granting the instant motion is appropriate.
5
1
Bhatti and Premier Valley’s motion is timely, and granting the
2
motion will not cause undue prejudice to any of the existing
3
parties.
4
motion will not complicate issues at trial, but rather will
5
promote judicial efficiency, as it will eliminate the need for
6
Bhatti and Premier Valley to bring a separate action against the
7
proposed third-party defendants, which they allege may be liable
8
for any judgment against them.
9
The court also concludes that granting the instant
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for
10
leave to file a third party complaint be, and the same hereby is,
11
GRANTED.
12
DATED:
October 18, 2012
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?