Carroll v. SGS North America, Inc.

Filing 58

RULING: The 53 Motion to Strike and 54 Motion for Expedited Hearing are GRANTED. The 51 MOTION to Dismiss The Third Party Complaint Asserted by SGS North America, Inc is stricken from the record. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 2/8/2018. (LLH)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TAYLOR CARROLL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS 16-537-SDD-RLB SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC. RULING This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Expedited Hearing1 filed by Defendant, SGS North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) on Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint Asserted by SGS North America, Inc.2 filed by Plaintiff, Taylor Carroll, (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff has filed an Opposition3 to Defendant’s Motion for Expedited Hearing4 and Defendant’s Motion to Strike.5 For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motions are GRANTED.6 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint on behalf of his wife Cindy Carroll.7 The third-party complaint filed by the Defendant asserts claims against Cindy R. Carroll and E.T. International (“Acura of Baton Rouge”) – Plaintiff is not named in the third-party complaint.8 Cindy Carroll separately filed her own Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.9 1 Rec. Doc. 54. Rec. Doc. 51. 3 Rec. Doc. 56 4 Rec. Doc. 54. 5 Rec. Doc. 53. 6 Rec. Docs. 53 and 54. 7 Rec. Doc. 51-1, p. 1. 8 Rec. Doc. 48, p. 15. 9 Rec. Doc. 52. 2 44017  Page 1 of 3      II. LAW AND ANALYSIS Plaintiff cites no controlling law which grants him standing to move for dismissal of a third party complaint in addition to his wife. Plaintiff’s basis for moving is “that neither federal nor state law provided a right of indemnity to SGS under the circumstances of this case.”10 Plaintiff cites James Talcott, Inc. v. Allahaban bank, Ltd.11 as a basis for standing to assert his motion. Tallcott is factually distinguishable from the present case because the moving party did not seek to dismiss the third-party complaint on behalf of, and in addition to, the third-party plaintiff.12 Numerous federal district and appellate courts13 have rejected Plaintiff’s expansive interpretation of Rule 14 that “any party may move to strike the third-party claim.”14 As the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reasoned in Essex Builders Group, Inc. v. Amerisure Insurance Co., “The Court cannot conceive how [Plaintiff] has standing to seek dismissal of [Defendant’s] cross-claim against [Third-Party Plaintiff], given that the [Defendant’s] Third-party Claim does not assert any claims against Plaintiff.”15 The Court agrees that “it is generally accepted that parties lack standing to seek dismissal of parties other than themselves.”16 Furthermore, assuming arguendo that Plaintiff had standing to move on behalf of his wife, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint is redundant to the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to 10 Rec. Doc. 55, p. 4. 444 F.2d 451, 464 (5th Cir. 1971). 12 Id. 13 See Bank v. Estate of Hayne, 10-2634, 2012 WL 13027250 at *2 (N.D. Al. March 31, 2012); Qwest Corp v. Arizona Corp. Com’n., 08-2374, 2009 WL 3059127 at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2009); Mantin v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 248 F.2d 530, 531 (9th Cir. 1957). 14 Rec. Doc. 55, p. 2. 15 429 F.Supp.2d 1274, 1291 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2005). 16 E.E.O.C. v. Brooks Run Min. Co., L.L.C., 08-00071, 2008 WL 2543545 at *2 (S.D. W. Va. June 23, 2008). 11 44017  Page 2 of 3      State a Claim filed by Cindy Carroll – the named Third-Party Plaintiff. Given that Plaintiff’s motion is redundant, the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), orders that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint be stricken from the record. III. CONCLUSION For the above stated reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Expedited Hearing17 and Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint Asserted by SGS North America, Inc.18 is hereby GRANTED. It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint19 be stricken from the record in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana the 8th day of February, 2018. S JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 17 Rec. Doc. 54. Rec. Doc. 53. 19 Rec. Doc. 51. 18 44017  Page 3 of 3     

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?