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)

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