Vallabhapurapu et al v. Burger King Corporation
Filing
132
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEVER THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AND VACATING HEARING by Judge William Alsup [denying 59 Motion to Sever]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MOHAN VALLABHAPURAPU, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15
16
No. C 11-00667 WHA
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO SEVER THIRD-PARTY
COMPLAINT AND
VACATING HEARING
BURGER KING CORPORATION,
Defendant.
/
INTRODUCTION
17
In this contractual dispute between a franchisor — Burger King Corporation — and its
18
California franchisees, the franchisees move in two groups to sever Burger King’s third-party
19
complaint against them and consolidate it with an earlier action, Newport v. Burger King
20
Corporation. For the following reasons, the two motions are DENIED and the hearing is vacated.
21
STATEMENT
22
This action is the second part of a class action originally asserted against Burger King,
23
which alleged ADA violations at 96 of its California restaurants. In the first part of the
24
litigation, Castaneda v. Burger King Corporation, C08-04262 WHA, classes were certified as to
25
ten of the alleged 96 non-compliant restaurants. Burger King reached a settlement with the
26
plaintiffs in Castaneda, and then sought to recoup the settlement costs from its franchisees via
27
contractual indemnity. In response, 64 of the franchisees filed a complaint, Newport v. Burger
28
King Corporation, C10-04511 WHA, seeking declaratory relief from indemnifying Burger King
1
for its own negligence (SRAC Br. 1–2; Third-Party Br. 4–5; Opp. to Third-Party 2–4).
2
Burger King contends that the plaintiffs in the Newport action — third-party defendants in this
3
action — only sought relief as to the Castaneda settlement (ten restaurants), but the third-party
4
defendants claim they sought relief from all claims at any and all Burger King locations
5
(Third-Party Br. 3; Opp. to Third-Party 3). The Newport action is ongoing and has a trial date
6
set for January 2012.
7
The disability plaintiffs filed this action in February 2011, against Burger King regarding
filed a third-party complaint pursuant to FRCP 14 against the franchisees for indemnity of
10
settlements and judgments for this action. Some of the franchisees now move to sever the
11
For the Northern District of California
the 86 restaurants not included in the Castaneda settlement (Dkt. No. 1). Burger King then
9
United States District Court
8
third-party complaint against them in this action and consolidate it with the indemnity issues
12
in the Newport action. The franchisees have filed two motions — one on behalf of numerous
13
third-party defendants in which others have since joined (See Dkt. Nos. 59, 128) — and the
14
other one by Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., and
15
Jerry M. Comstock (SRAC Br. 1–2; Third-Party Br. 4–5). This order follows full briefing.
16
ANALYSIS
17
Third-party defendants assert that it would be appropriate to sever Burger King’s
18
third-party complaint in this action and consolidate it with the Newport indemnity issues.
19
Third-party defendants argue that the third-party complaint is a compulsory counterclaim to
20
the Newport action and principles of comity require severance. SRAC defendants further
21
assert that severance would be in the interest of judicial economy and consolidation would
22
be appropriate under FRCP 42(a).
23
In the Court’s view, it is better to adjudicate the extent to which the franchisees owe
24
Burger King indemnity after any amounts paid to the disability plaintiffs is determined.
25
In addition, the franchisees’ liability for indemnity will turn on a franchise-by-franchise basis
26
depending on each franchise’s agreement with Burger King. Many of the agreements will be
27
parallel and deserve parallel treatment, but that will not always be true, and an individual
28
franchise-by-franchise appraisal will likely be needed. Consolidation of the claims into the
2
1
Newport action creates too big of a risk that the trial date set for January 9, 2012, will turn into a
2
zoo and mass confusion. There is no pressing need here for indemnity to be determined before
3
Burger King’s liability to the plaintiff class is determined.
4
In support of their argument, third-party defendants contend that the third-party
5
complaint must be severed from this action and consolidated with the Newport indemnity claims
6
because it is a compulsory counterclaim in the Newport action. Not so. “A pleading must state
7
as a counterclaim any claim that — at the time of its service — the pleader has against an
8
opposing party of the claim” if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and does not
9
require adding a party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. FRCP 13(a)(1).
As Burger King argues in its opposition, Burger King’s third-party complaint in this
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
action could not be considered a compulsory counterclaim in Newport because the outcome
12
of this action and thus, Burger King’s need for indemnity, remains to be determined. “A cause
13
of action [for indemnity] does not accrue until the indemnitee has made actual payment.”
14
States S.S. Co. v. Am. Smelting & Ref. Co., 339 F.2d 66, 70 (9th Cir. 1964). If a claim has
15
not yet accrued, it cannot be said that it was a compulsory counterclaim in an earlier action.
16
Accordingly, Burger King’s third-party complaint is not a compulsory counterclaim in the
17
Newport action. Third-party defendants’ and SRAC’s motions to sever Burger King’s third-
18
party complaint are hereby DENIED.
19
20
21
22
Third-party defendants request judicial notice of six documents that do not bear on the
foregoing analysis; that request is DENIED AS MOOT.
*
*
*
The Court may have to postpone the January 2012, trial date in all events on account
23
of a criminal trial in the MS-13 case. It is conceivable that the calculus on this motion will be
24
re-evaluated as we draw closer to trial in the Newport action.
25
26
27
28
3
1
CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, third-party defendants’ and SRAC’s motions to sever the
3
third-party complaint are DENIED. The hearing scheduled for October 27 is hereby VACATED.
4
Third-party defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED AS MOOT.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: October 19, 2011.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?