City of Murray, Kentucky v. Robertson, Incorporated Bridge & Grading Division et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/2/2017 granting 16 Motion for Leave to file Third Party Complaint. cc: Counsel(KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-00008-TBR
CITY OF MURRAY, KENTUCKY

PLAINTIFF

v.
ROBERTSON INCORPORATED BRIDGE
& GRADING DIVISION, et al.

DEFENDANTS

Memorandum Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court upon a motion by Defendant Robertson
Incorporated Bridge & Grading Division (Robertson) for leave to file a third-party
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a). [DN 16 at 1.] Plaintiff
City of Murray has responded, stating it does not oppose Robertson’s motion as long
as its third-party complaint does not destroy this Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction. See [DN 17.] For the following reasons, Robertson’s motion [DN 16] is
GRANTED.
This case arises from a construction project the City of Murray hired
Robertson to undertake in 2015.

See [DN 1.]

Alleging some of the work was

defective, the City brought this diversity suit against Robertson and its surety,
Federal Insurance Company. Robertson is a Missouri corporation with its principal
place of business in that state, and Federal Insurance Company is an Indiana
corporation with New Jersey headquarters. [Id. at 1-2.] Robertson now seeks leave
to file a third-party complaint against GRW Engineers, Inc. (GRW), the project
engineer,

and

Dale

Bearden

Construction

Company,

Inc.

(Bearden),

a

subcontractor. See [DN 16-1.] Both proposed third-party defendants are Kentucky
corporations. [Id. at 2.] Robertson claims that GRW and Bearden must indemnify
Robertson if Robertson is found to be liable to the City. [Id. at 4-5, 7-8.] Robertson
also asserts negligence and breach of contract claims against GRW and Bearden.
[Id. at 5-7.]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) states that “[a] defending party may, as
third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may
be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.” Upon review of Robertson’s
proposed third-party complaint, and without objection by the City, the Court is
satisfied that Robertson’s proposed complaint satisfies the requirements of Rule
14(a). See Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 512 F.3d 800, 805 (6th
Cir. 2008) (Rule 14 joinder permitted when third-party defendant’s liability to thirdparty plaintiff derives from third-party plaintiff’s liability, if any, to plaintiff).
Further, while “[t]hird-party claims by defendants for contribution against a thirdparty under [Rule] 14(a) generally do not require an independent jurisdictional
basis,” Grimes v. Mazda N. Am. Ops., 355 F.3d 566, 572 (6th Cir. 2004), here the
Court appears to possess subject-matter jurisdiction over Robertson’s claims against
GRW and Bearden on the basis of diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As the case currently
stands, no claim in this action is being asserted against a non-diverse party. This
Court may properly entertain Robertson’s third-party complaint.

2

Order
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendant Robertson Incorporated Bridge & Grading Division’s motion for
leave to file a third-party complaint [DN 16] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to
FILE Robertson’s proposed third-party complaint and its exhibits [DN 16-1; DN 162; DN 16-3] as of the date of this Order and issue summons.

May 2, 2017

CC: Counsel of Record

3