Langell et al v. Ideal Homes LLC

Filing 21

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 17 Motion for Leave to Serve and File Third-Party Complaint. (hrllc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2016)

E-Filed 5/27/16

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JIM LANGELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

v.
IDEAL HOMES LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-00821-HRL
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO SERVE AND FILE THIRDPARTY COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 17

12

Plaintiffs Jim and Rhonda Langell (“Plaintiffs”) sue Defendants Ideal Homes dba SAR

13

Ideal Ventures, LLC (“Ideal”) and CMH Manufacturing West, Inc. dba Karsten Homes

14

(“Karsten”).

15

Plaintiffs therefore sue Ideal for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violation of the

16

Magnuson-Moss Act. Dkt. No. 1.

Plaintiffs allege Ideal sold them a defective home manufactured by Karsten;

17

Ideal moves the court for leave to file a third-party complaint for “indemnity and

18

contribution claims” and to serve that complaint on SAR Development and Lazzco Painting. Dkt.

19

No. 17 at 1. Ideal asserts the proposed third-party defendants “are potentially responsible for the

20

defective conditions alleged” by Plaintiffs, including cracked concrete and visible seams on the

21

interior walls and ceilings. Compare Dkt. No. 17 at 2 with Dkt. No. 1 at 30. Ideal argues the court

22

should grant the motion because: (1) it was filed “within two months” of Ideal’s answer; (2)

23

granting the motion “will not delay the trial”; and (3) granting the motion “should not prejudice”

24

Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 17 at 2. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion and the deadline to

25

do so has expired.

26

A district court has discretion to grant a motion for leave to serve a third-party complaint

27

after considering four issues: (1) prejudice “the original plaintiff” might suffer; (2) the

28

“complication of issues” which might occur at trial; (3) the “likelihood of trial delay”; and (4) the

1

“timeliness” of the motion. E.g., Irwin v. Mascott, 94 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2000). A

2

court should also consider whether granting leave to implead a third party would “promote judicial

3

efficiency by eliminating the necessity for the defendant to bring a separate action against a third

4

individual who m[ight] be . . . liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s original

5

claim.” Southwest Administrators, Inc. v. Rozay’s Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986);

6

e.g., Joe Hand Productions, Inc. v. Davis, No. 11-cv-06166-CW, 2012 WL 6035538, at *1 (N.D.

7

Cal. Dec. 4, 2012).
The court sees no prejudice Plaintiffs would be likely to suffer if Ideal’s motion were

9

granted. The claims Ideal intends to raise against third parties would largely involve issues and

10

facts already raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint, and so it is likely that granting Ideal’s motion would

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

not significantly complicate or delay trial.

12

management conference has not yet occurred. The court is therefore satisfied that the granting of

13

Ideal’s unopposed motion would promote judicial efficiency and eliminate the necessity for the

14

filing of a separate case. E.g., Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., 2012 WL 6035538, at *2.

And Ideal’s motion is timely—the initial case

Conclusion

15
16

The court vacates the hearing set for Ideal’s motion for leave to serve and file a third-party

17

complaint. The motion for leave to serve and file a third-party complaint is granted. Ideal shall,

18

within one week, file its proposed third-party complaint as the operative third-party complaint.

19

Dkt. No. 17-1 at 4-7. Ideal shall serve the third-party complaint on SAR Development and Lazzco

20

Painting within two weeks.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/27/16

23
24
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2