Cioban-Leontiy v. Silverthorn Resort Associates, LP et al

Filing 131

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/15/2019 DENYING 101 , 105 without Prejudice, Motions for Summary Judgment, to being renewed once the scope of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and any cross-claims based thereon, has been ascertained. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OLGA CIOBAN-LEONTIY,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.

21

Defendants.
SILVERTHORN RESORT
ASSOCIATES, LP, a California Limited
Partnership,
Cross-Claimant,

22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER

SILVERTHORN RESORT
ASSOCIATES, LP, a California Limited
Partnership, WATERWAY
HOUSEBOAT BUILDERS, a foreign
corporation, VOLVO PENTA OF THE
AMERICAS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,

19
20

No. 2:17-cv-01626-MCE-DMC

v.
DMITRY GAIDUCHIK, MAKSIM
LEONTIY, VOLVO PENTA OF THE
AMERICAS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and WATERWAY
HOUSEBOAT BUIDERS, a foreign
corporation,
Cross-Defendants.

28
1

1
2

VOLVO PENTA OF THE AMERICAS,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company,

3

Cross-Claimant,

4
5
6
7
8

v.
DMITRY GAIDUCHIK, MAKSIM
LEONTIY, SILVERTHORN RESORT
ASSOCIATES, LP, a California Limited
Partnership, and WATERWAY
HOUSEBOAT BUIDERS, a foreign
corporation,
Cross-Defendants.

9
10

Through the present action, Plaintiff Olga Cioban-Leontiy (“Plaintiff”) seeks

11
12

damages for personal injuries she sustained after jumping from a houseboat on Lake

13

Shasta, California and coming into contact with the vessel’s propeller. Plaintiff’s

14

Complaint was originally filed in Shasta County Superior Court on May 10, 2017, and

15

included causes of action for products liability and negligence. In addition to suing

16

Defendant Silverthorn Resort Associates, LP, Inc. (“Silverthorn”), the marina where the

17

houseboat had been rented, Plaintiff’s Complaint also originally named Volvo Penta of

18

America (“Volvo”), the manufacturer of the houseboat’s motor. On August 3, 2017,

19

Volvo removed the case to this Court, citing federal question jurisdiction under both the

20

Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, 46 U.S.C. § 4301, et seq., and the Inland Navigation

21

Rules, 33 U.S.C. § 2701. Presently before the Court are two motions for summary

22

judgment. The first was filed on January 24, 2019, by Volvo with respect to Silverthorn’s

23

cross-claim against it. ECF No. 101. Then, on January 25, 2019, Silverthorn filed its

24

own motion for summary judgment, or alternatively for partial summary judgment (ECF

25

No. 105) on the three causes of action contained in Plaintiff’s then operative pleading.

26

Before addressing those Motions, which are now before this Court for adjudication, the

27

complicated and unusual history of this case must be discussed.

28

///
2

1

Following removal to this Court, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF

2

No. 17) on October 24, 2017 which named Waterway Houseboat Builders, the company

3

that actually constructed the vessel, as an additional Defendant. Silverthorn and Volvo

4

proceeded to file their own cross-claims for indemnity and contribution, but Waterway

5

was never served with the First Amended Complaint prior to the time Plaintiff voluntarily

6

dismissed it as a defendant on May 14, 2018. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff then proceeded to

7

enter into a stipulation with Volvo for dismissal in exchange for a waiver of costs. ECF

8

No. 43. Under the terms of that stipulation, Plaintiff represented to the Court and to the

9

remaining Defendant, Silverthorn, that it was “no longer pursuing product liability claims

10

against Volvo Penta and Waterway Houseboat Builders, but rather, is pursuing

11

Silverthorn under theories that do not involve Volvo Penta or Waterway Houseboat

12

Builders.” ECF No. 43, p. 2:3-5. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Motion for Good Faith

13

Settlement as to that settlement (ECF No. 53), which Silverthorn opposed on grounds

14

that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, as then constituted, continued to contain

15

product liability claims despite Plaintiff’s apparent stipulation otherwise. At the time of

16

the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion on August 16, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to

17

meet and confer within the next thirty days as to an amended pleading which could

18

resolve those differences. When Plaintiff declined to file any further amended pleading,

19

the Court denied the Motion for Good Faith Settlement on November 13, 2018,

20

reasoning that because Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint still included products

21

liability claims implicating Volvo for which indemnity could be asserted, a settlement in

22

exchange only for a waiver of costs could not be deemed in good faith given the

23

potentially enormous damages being asserted by Plaintiff. ECF No. 88.

24

In the meantime, Silverthorn filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on

25

August 31, 2018 (ECF No. 66) on grounds it could not ascertain what factual

26

contentions, if any, Plaintiff asserted against Silverthorn, given the fact that the Amended

27

Complaint

28

///
3

1

includes only allegations against Silverthorn, Volvo and Waterway jointly.1 In the

2

absence of both Volvo and Waterway as Defendants, and given Plaintiff’s assertion that

3

it makes no products liability claims against either of those parties, Silverthorn argued it

4

cannot reasonably ascertain just what product liability claims are in fact being asserted

5

against it at this juncture since the products liability allegations of the Amended

6

Complaint as then constituted drew no effective distinction between the respective roles

7

of Silverthorn, Waterway and Volvo in the circumstances surrounding this lawsuit.

8

Reasoning that the First Amended Complaint provided no factual specifics

9

whatsoever as to Silverthorn, the Court granted Silverthorn’s Motion by Order filed

10

February 6, 2019, and directed Plaintiff to file a further amended pleading by

11

February 20, 2019 if she chose to do so. ECF No. 115. Plaintiff subsequently filed her

12

Second Amended Complaint on February 20, 2019. ECF No. 119. The Court’s review

13

of the Second Amended Complaint indicates that it is directed against Silverthorn, only,

14

and appears to eliminate the products liability causes of action previously alleged in the

15

First Amended Complaint, instead relying only on negligence and purported “strict

16

liability” claims. In addition, the factual averments made against Silverthorn are

17

substantially different in that they appear to focus not on the absence of a propeller

18

guard but instead on Silverthorn’s alleged failure to provide appropriate safety

19

information to the occupants of the houseboat after it was rented and before the boat

20

was taken out on Lake Shasta.

21

The Motions for Summary Judgment now before the Court were both filed before

22

Plaintiff’s now-operative Second Amended Complaint. Volvo’s Motion as to Silverthorn’s

23

crossclaim against it is premised on claims made against Volvo in the context of its

24

answer to a now-superseded First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 21. Whether or not

25

Silverthorn will continue to pursue that cross-claim in the wake of Plaintiff’s Second

26

Amended Complaint remains to be seen, particularly given Plaintiff’s apparent

27
28

1

The Court notes that Silverthorn’s Motion originally also contained a request that the matter be
remanded back to state court. By Notice filed November 2, 2018 (ECF No. 85), however, Silverthorn
withdrew that request and consequently the remand request was not further considered.

4

1

elimination of any products liability claims. Consequently, Volvo’s Motion for Summary

2

Judgment (ECF No. 101) is DENIED, without prejudice to being renewed should

3

circumstances warrant at a later date.

4

Silverthorn’s own Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 105), as directed

5

specifically to the three causes of action pleaded by Plaintiff in the prior First Amended

6

Complaint, is similarly rendered moot by the filing of a Second Amended Complaint and

7

is therefore also DENIED without prejudice to being renewed as this litigation

8

progresses. For now, the docket reveals that Silverthorn has properly filed a Motion to

9

Dismiss (ECF No. 121) as to the Second Amended Complaint. Until the pleadings are

10

clarified, any further request for summary judgment would be premature given the fact

11

that just what claims Plaintiff may ultimately be permitted to pursue against Silverthorn

12

remains unclear. Moreover, whether or not Silverthorn will continue to pursue its cross-

13

claim against Volvo following the Second Amended Complaint is equally uncertain.

14

In sum, then, the Motions for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Cross-

15

Defendant Volvo and Defendant Silverthorn (ECF Nos. 101 and 105) are both DENIED,

16

without prejudice to being renewed once the scope of Plaintiff’s Second Amended

17

Complaint, and any cross-claims based thereon, has been ascertained. 2

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2019

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered
both motions submitted on the briefs in accordance with E.D. Local Rule 230(g).

5