MARBELLA TOWER URBAN RENEWAL ASSOCIATES SOUTH, LLC v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION
Filing
32
OPINION AND ORDER granting Third Party Defendant's 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count One of the Third-Party Complaint against it. Count One is dismissed with prejudice, etc. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 03/20/2019. (ek)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARBELLA TOWER URBAN RENEWAL
ASSOCIATES SOUTH, LLC,
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 17-12248 (WHW)(CLW)
V.
BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION,
Defendant.
BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
V.
F&G MECHANICAL CORPORATION,
Third-Party Defendant.
Walls, Senior District Judge
Third-Party Defendant F&G Mechanical Corporation (“F&G”) moves for partial
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) as to Count One of the Third-Party
Complaint filed by Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff BSH Home Appliances Corporation
(“BSH”). ECF No. 29. BSH does not object to F&G’s motion. ECF No. 30. The motion is
granted.
BACKGROUND
This case concerns accidents whereby washing machine hoses allegedly separated from
supply faucets in an apartment building, causing leaks that resulted in extensive property
damage. ECF No. 1-1 (Complaint). The Plaintiff is a corporate entity that owns the high-rise
apartment building in Jersey City, New Jersey where the incidents took place. Id. Plaintiff
I
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
originally sued Defendant BSH, who they state supplied and distributed the washing machines
that allegedly malfunctioned. Id. On April 19, 2018, BSH filed a third-party complaint against
F&G. alleging that F&G installed the washing machines and thus should be liable for
indemnification and/or contribution. ECF No. 11. On February 22, 2019, F&G moved for
judgment on the pleadings as to Count One of the third-party complaint. ECF No. 29. B$H did
not respond to the motion, but in a letter to the Court stated that it has “no objection” to it being
granted. ECF No. 30.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion under Rule 12(c) is decided under the same standards applicable to a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Ti,the
i
Gov ‘t of Virgin Islands, 938
F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991).
Judgment on the pleadings “will only be granted where the moving party clearly
establishes there are no material issues of fact, and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” DiCarlo v. St. Mary Hosp., 530 F.3d 255, 259 (3d Cir. 200$). “In considering a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court must accept all of the allegations in the pleadings
of the party against whom the motion is addressed as true and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the non-moving party.” Zimmerman v. Corbett, $73 F.3d 414, 417-18 (3d Cir. 2017),
cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2623 (2018).
A plaintiff “may not secure a judgment on the pleadings when the [defendant’s] answer
raises issues of fact that, if proved, would defeat recovery.” Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc.
§
1368 (3d ed. 201$). Similarly, a defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion must be denied “if there are
allegations in the plaintiffs pleadings that, if proved, would permit recovery on his claim.” Id.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DISCUSSION
F&G contends that judgment on the pleadings is warranted because in order to recover
under indemnification, “B$H must show that its liability is imputed, vicarious or constructive
and that it is without personal fault for the accident.” Mot. Br. (ECF No. 29-1) at 7. This is a
correct recitation of New Jersey
law.
See Encompass Ins. Co.
v.
Quincy Mut. fire Ins. Co., No.
A-3000-12T4, 2014 WL 5880143, at *6 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2014). Since BSH
will either (1) prevail against the Plaintiff or (2) be found to have manufactured a deceptive or
dangerous product or be in breach of warranty, F&G reasons that it cannot be liable to BSH
under a theory of indemnification. BSH, perhaps realizing this conundrum, informed the Court it
does not object to Count One being dismissed. Because BSH would not simply be
“merely.. .technical[ly] liable” and “without personal fault,” Adler’s Quality Bakety, Inc. v.
Gaseteria, Inc., 32 N.J. 55, 80 (1960), if it were to lose its underlying case, its indemnification
claim against F&G necessarily fails.
CONCLUSION
It is hereby ORDERED that judgment on the pleadings in accordance with fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(c) is entered into on behalf of Third-Party Defendant F&G Mechanical Corporation as to
Count One of the Third-Party Complaint against it. Count One is dismissed with prejudice.
DATE:
p
(L 7t
\1
/
William H. WalI
Senior United States District Court Judge
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?