Gcube Insurance Services, Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation
Filing
46
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/4/2013 ORDERING that Areva Solar CA's 33 motion to dismiss the third-party complaint be, and the same hereby, is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
----oo0oo---GCUBE INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC., a California
corporation,
14
15
16
NO. CIV. 2:12-1163 WBS CKD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff,
v.
17
LINDSAY CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive,
18
Defendant.
/
19
LINDSAY CORPORATION,
20
Third-party
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff,
v.
AREVA SOLAR, INC.; AUSRA CA I,
LLC now known as AREVA SOLAR
CA I, LLC; SPECIAL SERVICES
CONTRACTORS, INC.; LLOYD W.
AUBRY CO., INC.; MATERIAL
INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS, INC.; and
ZOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Third-party
Defendants.
/
1
1
----oo0oo----
2
Plaintiff GCube Insurance Services, Inc. brought this
3
action against defendant Lindsay Corporation, Inc. (“Lindsay”)
4
arising out of Lindsay’s provision of A-frame supports for a
5
Solar Steam Generation array (“SSG array”).
6
Lindsay filed a third-party complaint (“TPC”) against Areva
7
Solar, Inc.; Ausra CA I, LLC, now known as Areva Solar CA I, LLC
8
(“Areva Solar CA”); Special Services Contractors, Inc.; Lloyd W.
9
Aubry Co., Inc.; Material Integrity Solutions, Inc.; and Zoes one
10
through fifty.
11
negligence, equitable indemnity, equitable contribution, and
12
declaratory relief.
13
(Docket No. 21.)
On March 1, 2013,
Lindsay brings claims of
Third-party defendants Areva Solar, Inc., and Areva
14
Solar CA now move to dismiss the TPC for failure to state a claim
15
upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
16
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
17
Lindsay voluntarily dismissed Areva Solar, Inc.
18
(Docket No. 33.)
On May 13, 2013,
(Docket No. 37.)
To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
19
“only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
20
on its face.”
21
(2007).
22
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,”
23
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and “[w]here a
24
complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a
25
defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between
26
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’”
27
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
28
plaintiff has stated a claim, the court must accept the
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
This “plausibility standard,” however, “asks for more
2
In deciding whether a
Id.
1
allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable
2
inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
3
U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis v.
4
Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322
5
(1972).
6
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
In plaintiff’s Complaint for subrogation, plaintiff
7
alleges that it issued an insurance policy to Ausra, Inc.
8
(“Ausra”) on or about March 20, 2009, insuring all construction,
9
erection, and operation activities associated with a SSG array
10
located at Ausra’s Kimberlina facility in Bakersfield,
11
California.
12
Lindsay specially manufactured twenty-five steel A-Frame supports
13
for the array at a plant in Omaha, Nebraska, and then had the
14
supports delivered to the Kimberlina facility.
15
On or about May 28, 2010, as the SSG array components were raised
16
atop the A-Frame supports, twenty-four of the supports buckled at
17
the joint that Lindsay allegedly cut, welded, and manufactured.
18
(Id. ¶¶ 15-16.)
19
(Compl. ¶ 7 (Docket No. 1).)
Plaintiff alleges that
(Id. ¶¶ 8-10.)
Ausra tendered its claim for all losses and damages
20
resulting from the incident to plaintiff.
21
alleges that an investigation revealed incomplete fusion of the
22
welds performed by Lindsay at the joints of the A-Frame supports.
23
(Id. ¶¶ 19-20.)
24
resulting from the incident and now pursues subrogation rights
25
against Lindsay, (id. ¶ 24), asserting claims for strict products
26
liability and negligence.
27
28
(Id. ¶ 18.)
Plaintiff
Plaintiff paid for all losses and damages
Areva Solar CA contends that Lindsay has failed to
allege sufficient “facts to support a possible scenario under
3
1
which the subrogor Areva [Solar CA] may be liable for Lindsay’s
2
alleged liability to the subrogee [plaintiff]” and facts to
3
support its allegation that plaintiff is not the subrogee of
4
Areva Solar CA.
5
Although Areva Solar CA does not explicitly argue as much, it
6
must be its contention that Areva Solar CA is the same entity as
7
Ausra or that some other basis exists for finding a subrogation
8
relationship between it and plaintiff.
9
Lindsay’s contention that Areva Solar CA is a different entity
(Mem. in Supp. at 2:10-12 (Docket No. 33).)
10
from Ausra.1
11
separate entity from Ausra.
12
In contrast, it is
Ausra.
13
Lindsay’s TPC treats Areva Solar CA as a wholly
It makes no allegations against
Areva Solar CA’s arguments are not well-taken for the
14
basic reason that there is nothing properly before the court--
15
either allegations or evidence--to suggest that Areva Solar CA is
16
the subrogor of plaintiff and plaintiff is its subrogee.
17
Likewise, there is nothing to suggest that Areva Solar CA is the
18
same entity as Ausra.
19
allegations shows, plaintiff alleges only that it issued a policy
20
of insurance to Ausra.
21
it issued a policy to Areva Solar CA or transferred the Ausra
22
policy Ausra to Areva Solar CA.
23
and Areva Solar CA are actually the same entity.
24
25
As the above summary of plaintiff’s
(See id. ¶ 7.)
It does not allege that
Nor does it allege that Ausra
Nor has Areva Solar CA presented any evidence outside
of the Complaint that the court may properly consider on a motion
26
1
27
28
Lindsay alleges that Areva Solar CA was formerly known
as Ausra CA I, LLC. (Third-Party Compl. ¶ 7.) There is no
evidence or allegation, however, indicating that Ausra CA I, LLC
is the same entity as Ausra, Inc.
4
1
to dismiss to show a subrogation relationship or to show that it
2
is the same entity as Ausra.
3
F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that on a motion to
4
dismiss, the court usually may not consider evidence outside the
5
pleadings without converting the motion into one for summary
6
judgment).
7
See United States v. Ritchie, 342
In the absence of any allegations or evidence of a
8
subrogation relationship between Areva Solar CA and plaintiff,
9
Lindsay has alleged sufficient facts to support a “possible
10
scenario under which” Areva Solar CA could be liable to Lindsay
11
for its alleged liability to plaintiff.
12
6.)
13
show “(1) a legal duty to use reasonable care, (2) breach of that
14
duty, and (3) proximate cause between the breach and (4) the
15
plaintiff’s injury.”
16
App. 4th 1333, 1339 (2d Dist. 1998).
(Mem. in Supp. at 5:2-
To prove a cause of action for negligence, plaintiff must
17
Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles, 66 Cal.
In the TPC, Lindsay alleges that Areva Solar CA not
18
only owned and operated the SSG array, but also that it
19
negligently “supervised the construction, installation and
20
erection” of the SSG array and its component parts, including the
21
A-Frame supports.
22
No. 21).)
23
have known that the inadequately designed components of the SSG
24
array would place stress loads on the A-Frame supports during the
25
erection process that resulted in damage to the SSG array, the A-
26
Frame support towers, and related components.
27
Likewise, it alleges that Areva Solar CA knew or should have
28
known that the A-Frame supports were constructed and installed
(Third-Party Compl. (“TPC”) ¶¶ 17, 23 (Docket
It further alleges that Areva Solar CA knew or should
5
(Id. ¶ 21.)
1
without adequate guying or cabling, resulting in the damage
2
claimed by plaintiff.
(Id. ¶ 22.)
3
Lindsay then alleges that Areva Solar CA owed it a duty
4
to “use ordinary and reasonable care to design, inspect, analyze,
5
construct, erect, manage, supervise, operate and/or control” the
6
SSG array and its component parts, including the A-Frame
7
supports, without causing damage to those parts.
8
35.)
9
id. ¶¶ 25-30, 36.)
(Id. ¶¶ 24,
It further alleges breach, causation, and damages.
(See
Thus, Lindsay has set forth a claim for
10
negligence against Areva Solar CA.2
11
means of holding Areva Solar CA liable for Lindsay’s alleged
12
liability to plaintiff.
13
This claim is a plausible
Assuming that Lindsay would need to allege facts to
14
show the absence of a subrogation relationship had plaintiff
15
alleged such a relationship, no such relationship is alleged in
16
the Complaint.
17
any allegations against Areva Solar CA.
18
actually never mentioned.
19
evidence before the court indicating that Areva Solar CA is the
20
same entity as Ausra, such that the subrogation relationship
21
between plaintiff and Ausra alleged in the Complaint would show
22
Areva Solar CA to be in a subrogation relationship with plaintiff
23
as well.
As explained above, the Complaint is bereft of
That corporation is
Further, there are no allegations or
24
Lindsay alleges in the TPC that Areva Solar CA did not
25
receive any payments from plaintiff for any claimed and disputed
26
27
28
2
Areva Solar CA did not specifically challenge the
sufficiency of Lindsay’s allegations for its claims for
indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief.
6
1
damages incurred by plaintiff, that plaintiff is not the subrogee
2
of Areva Solar CA, and that Areva Solar CA is not the subrogor of
3
plaintiff.
4
contention that the court need not accept as true a complaint’s
5
legal conclusions.
6
court does not consider Lindsay’s allegations that plaintiff and
7
Areva Solar CA do not have a subrogation relationship, as already
8
explained, Lindsay has properly alleged a claim against Areva
9
Solar CA.
(Id. ¶¶ 31-32).
Areva Solar CA is correct in its
See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
But even if the
There is no requirement that a third-party plaintiff
10
first establish the absence of a subrogation relationship between
11
the third-party defendants and the plaintiff to bring its third-
12
party claims.
13
Because plaintiff neither alleged that Ausra and Areva
14
Solar CA are one in the same or that it has a subrogation
15
relationship with Areva Solar CA, nor provided the court with any
16
evidence that it may properly consider on a motion to dismiss of
17
either, Lindsay need not aver additional allegations to plead
18
around the abstract possibility that plaintiff is also the
19
subrogee of Areva Solar CA.
20
to dismiss Lindsay’s claims against it must be denied.
21
Accordingly, Areva Solar CA’s motion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Areva Solar CA’s motion to
22
dismiss the third-party complaint be, and the same hereby, is
23
DENIED.
24
DATED:
June 4, 2013
25
26
27
28
7
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?