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)

Download PDF
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

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?