Renna et al v. Omni La Costa Resort & Spa, LLC et al

Filing 9

ORDER Granting 7 Motion to File Third-Party Complaint. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/15/2018. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JACQUEE RENNA, and KIPP
DOWNING,

15

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
FILE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 18-CV-237-JLS (JLB)

v.
OMNI LA COSTA RESORT & SPA,
LLC, et al.,

16

(ECF No. 7)

Defendants.

17
18
19

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Third-Party

20

Complaint, (“MTN,” ECF No. 7). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the

21

Motion, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 8). Defendants seek leave to file a third-party complaint

22

against Gregory Renna.

23

BACKGROUND

24

Plaintiffs Ms. Renna and Mr. Downing were staying at the Omni La Costa Resort &

25

Spa. (“Compl.” ECF No. 1, ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Renna’s ex-husband, Mr.

26

Renna, found out the two were staying at the resort. (Id. ¶ 14.) Mr. Renna went to the

27

resort and asked the front desk agent for Ms. Renna’s room number and a key to her room.

28

The front desk agent obliged. Mr. Renna went to the room, unlocked the door, and
1
18-CV-237-JLS (JLB)

1

“launched a violent attack” on Mr. Downing. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint

2

against Defendants for (1) negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3)

3

negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; (4) negligent training; (5) premises liability;

4

(6) and respondeat superior. Plaintiffs did not include Mr. Renna as a Defendant. Pursuant

5

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1), Defendants move for leave to file a third-party

6

complaint against Mr. Renna.

7

LEGAL STANDARD

8

Rule 14(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that with the court’s leave, “a defending

9

party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve summons and complaint on a non party who is or

10

may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.” Accordingly, a third-party claim

11

may be asserted under Rule 14(a)(1) only when the third-party’s liability is in some way

12

dependent on the outcome of the main claim, or when the third-party is secondarily liable

13

to the defending party. See Stewart v. Am. Int’l Oil and Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 199–200

14

(9th Cir. 1988). In other words, a defendant bringing a third-party claim must be attempting

15

to transfer to the third-party a liability asserted by the original plaintiff against that

16

defendant. Id. at 200; C. Wright, et al., 6 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1446 (3d ed.

17

2018).

18

Whether to grant a Rule 14(a)(1) impleader motion rests in the sound discretion of

19

the trial court. United States v. One Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 452 (9th Cir. 1983).

20

“In a non-exhaustive list of considerations, the court will seek to balance the benefits

21

afforded by liberal federal third-party practice against the possible prejudice to the plaintiff

22

and the third-party defendant, complexity of the issues, likelihood of delay, and timeliness

23

of the motion to implead.” Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc. v. Jett Integration, No.

24

14cv1092 JM (KSC), 2015 WL 859448, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2015) (citing Irwin v.

25

Mascott, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2000)).

26

ANALYSIS

27

Here, Defendants satisfy the requirements for impleader. With respect to the Rule’s

28

derivative liability requirement, part of the basis for Plaintiffs’ complaint is that Mr. Renna
2
18-CV-237-JLS (JLB)

1

caused them distress. Indeed, the other part of their Complaint alleges negligent and

2

wrongful conduct on behalf of the hotel employees. But, the allegations set forth in the

3

proposed third-party complaint could possibly impose some liability arising in tort on Mr.

4

Renna. Accordingly, without addressing the merits or ultimate viability of the third-party

5

complaint, this threshold requirement is satisfied.

6

With regard to timeliness and prejudice, the Court finds that Plaintiffs will not be

7

prejudiced. Plaintiffs admit that the discovery cutoff does not occur until August 2018.

8

(Opp’n 2.) The Court also finds that Mr. Renna’s joinder will not substantially complicate

9

the action, and the impact on the timely resolution of this case will not be seriously

10

compromised. The Court concludes that the judicial economy benefits of allowing

11

Defendants to implead Mr. Renna outweigh undue delay and prejudice to Plaintiffs.

12

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. Accordingly, the hearing date set for

13

June 28, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. is VACATED. Defendants SHALL file the third-party

14

complaint attached to their Motion within seven (7) days of the electronic docketing of this

15

Order.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 15, 2018

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
18-CV-237-JLS (JLB)