Universal Linen Service, LLC v. Cherokee Chemical Co., Inc.
Filing
56
MEMORANUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 8/6/2013; 32 motion for leave to file third party complaint is SUSTAINED; 37 motion to strike portions of defendant's reply in support of motion to file third party complaint is DENIED. cc:counsel (TLB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00238-H
UNIVERSAL LINEN SERVICE, LLC,
PLAINTIFF
V.
CHEROKEE CHEMICAL CO., INC.,
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This dispute involves allegations that Defendant, Cherokee Chemical Company, Inc.,
sold improper water treatment products used in Miura boilers that Plaintiff, Universal Linen,
installed and operated in its business as a commercial linen supplier. Plaintiff alleges that the
water treatment products provided by Defendant damaged the boilers as a result of the formation
of corrosion. The matters before the Court are Defendant’s motion for leave to file a third party
complaint and Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of Defendant’s reply in support of its motion
to file a third party complaint.1 For the following reasons, the Court will sustain both motions.
I.
Defendant seeks to file a third-party complaint against Miura North America, Inc.
(“Miura”), the entity that sold the boilers at issue to Plaintiff. Aside from supplying the boilers,
Defendant alleges that Miura was to provide training to Plaintiff’s employees concerning the
boilers’ operation and maintenance and inspection of the boilers’ performance during the
warranty period. Defendant generally alleges that Miura failed to fulfill its duties to that end and
1
Though the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion, it did consider the arguments raised as they pertain to Defendant’s
motion for leave to file a third party complaint. The motion to strike largely reargues positions held by the parties in
their briefing concerning the impleader motion. Plaintiff’s motion is denied because Defendant did not raise new
issues in its reply, but rather provided more thorough evidentiary support for issues advanced in its original motion.
Accordingly, it is improper to strike portions of Defendant’s reply.
1
as a result, it contributed to the boilers’ failures. In support of its position, Defendant cites
Kentucky’s apportionment statute, KRS § 411.182, which governs the procedure for determining
the respective liabilities of joint tortfeasors. Since Miura may have engaged in conduct that
caused or contributed to all or some of Plaintiff’s damages, Defendant maintains that Miura
should be made a party to this action.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 governs third-party practice and provides that a
defendant must obtain leave of the court to file a third-party complaint more than fourteen days
after serving its answer. FED. R. CIV. P. 14. “The purpose of Rule 14 is to permit additional
parties whose rights may be affected by the decision in the original action to be joined so as to
expedite the final determination of the rights and liabilities of all the interested parties in one
suit.” Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 512 F.3d 800, 805 (6th Cir. 2008). The
decision of whether to grant such a motion is a “matter committed to the discretion of the district
court, and the exercise of discretion is essentially a process of balancing the prejudices.” Asher
v. Unarcho Material Handling, Inc., 2007 WL 3046064, *4 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 16, 2007) (internal
quotation omitted). Factors a court may consider include “(1) the timeliness of the motion; (2)
the probability of trial delay; (3) the potential for complication of issues at trial; (4) prejudice to
the original plaintiff.” Botkin v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Ins. Co., Ltd., 2013 WL 3489469,
*6 (E.D. Ky. July 10, 2013).
The Sixth Circuit directs that
[t]hird-party pleading is appropriate only where the third-party defendant's
liability to the third-party plaintiff is dependent on the outcome of the main claim;
one that merely arises out of the same set of facts does not allow a third-party
defendant to be impleaded. A defendant attempting to transfer the liability asserted against him
by the original plaintiff to the third-party defendant is therefore the essential criterion of a
third-party claim. Correlatively, a defendant's claim against a third-party defendant cannot
simply be an independent or related claim, but must be based upon the original plaintiff's claim
against the defendant. See Stiber v. United States, 60 F.R.D. 668, 670 (E.D. Pa. 1973) (“Under
2
Rule 14, the liability of the third-party must be dependent on the outcome of the main claim.”).
Rule 14(a) does not allow a third-party complaint to be founded on a defendant's independent
cause of action against a third-party defendant, even though arising out of the same occurrence
underlying plaintiff's claim, because a third-party complaint must be founded on a third party's
actual or potential liability to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the
defendant. United States v. Olavarrieta, 812 F.2d 640, 643 (11th Cir.1987).
Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 512 F.3d at 805.
With this guidance, the Court finds that the third party complaint against Miura is
appropriate under the circumstances. Defendant alleges facts, which if proven, would establish
that Miura caused or contributed to the boiler failures that occurred in this case. Plaintiff
attempts to narrow the causation inquiry, seeking to hold Defendant, the chemical water
treatment provider, solely liable for the alleged corrosion and failure. However, the third party
complaint alleges that Miura’s actions or inactions could have contributed to the boilers’ failures
and thus Plaintiff’s claim for damages. For instance, Defendant alleges that there is evidence
that the chemistry levels in the boilers were not adequately controlled, a responsibility that may
have been charged to Miura. Defendant should be able to present alterative theories of how and
why Plaintiff’s boilers failed; since some of these theories implicate Miura, inclusion in this
action is appropriate to properly apportion liability. See Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 512 F.3d at 805
(“Underlying Rule 14 is a desire to promote economy by avoiding the situation where a
defendant has been adjudicated liable and then must bring a totally new action against a third
party who may be liable to him for all or part of the original plaintiff’s claim against him.”)
(internal quotation omitted). The claim against Miura seems to be derivative of the original
action and any liability that may flow to Miura is dependent on the outcome of the litigation in
the original action between Plaintiff and Defendant.2
2
Plaintiff makes the argument that Miura should not be included in this action because it claims the water chemicals
sold by Defendant caused the boilers’ damage and Miura expressly disclaimed any responsibility for damage from
unsuitable water treatment. However, as discussed, the cause of the boilers’ failures remains disputed. The actions
or inactions of Miura could be wholly unrelated to water treatment, yet be a contributing factor in Plaintiff’s
damages.
3
The Court does not agree with Plaintiff that the third party complaint asserts a claim
entirely independent and separate from Plaintiff’s original complaint. Indeed, litigation in this
matter will resolve who, and to what extent, is responsible for the boiler damage. See TX
Capital Bank, N.A. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2012 WL 443460, *2 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 10, 2012)
(“Apportionment of liability arises when two or more joint tortfeasors are guilty of concurrent
negligence of substantially the same character which converge to cause the plaintiff’s damage.”)
(internal quotation omitted). It is simply too early to know the exact cause of the failure of the
boilers. It follows then that it is too early to rule out the possibility that the actions of inactions
of Miura may have contributed to Plaintiff’s damages.
Finally, the balance of equities weights in favor of granting the motion. Defendant has
not deliberately delayed in filing its motion for leave to file a third party complaint, and Plaintiff
has made no compelling argument that the amendment is untimely. This case is in its infancy,
and granting the instant motion would not prejudice Plaintiff’s ability to have this matter
adjudicated in a prompt fashion.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for leave to file a third party
complaint [Doc. 32] is SUSTAINED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of Defendant’s
reply in support of its motion to file a third party complaint [Doc. 37] is DENIED.
4
August 6, 2013
cc:
Counsel of Record
5
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?