Crowder v. G.UB.MK Constructors et al

Filing 30

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 15 MOTION to Quash Summons and Service of Summons and/or Motion to Dismiss filed by WorleyParsons Group, Inc., 19 MOTION to Quash Summons and Service of Summons and/or Motion to Dismiss filed by URS Ener gy & Construction, Inc., 17 MOTION to Quash Summons and Service of Summons and/or Motion to Dismiss filed by Williams Plant Services, LLC. The undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of WorleyPars ons Group, Inc., Williams Plant Services, LLC, and URS Energy & Construction, Inc. be GRANTED and that they be DISMISSED as defendants in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 1/2/2013. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
RITA CROWDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
G.UB.MK CONSTRUCTORS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:12-1138
Judge Sharp/Bryant

TO: The Honorable Kevin H. Sharp
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this action alleging employment discrimination under
Title VII, three nonparties have filed their virtually identical
motions to quash summons and service of summons and/or motion to
dismiss (Docket Entry Nos. 15, 17 and 19).

Plaintiff has filed a

response (Docket Entry No. 25) and the three nonparty movants have
filed replies (Docket Entry Nos. 27, 28 and 29).
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge RECOMMENDS that these motions to dismiss be GRANTED.
Statement of the Case
Plaintiff Crowder in her complaint alleges that she was
employed as a laborer by G.UB.MK Constructors, allegedly a joint
venture of three companies, WorleyParsons Group, Inc., Williams
Plant Services and URS Corporation’s Washington Division.

The

joint venture is the only named defendant.
When

the

complaint

was

filed,

plaintiff

sought

the

issuance of three summons, each addressed to one of the three
nonparty movants (Docket Entry No. 1-2 at 1-3).

Each nonparty movant seeks dismissal of this action
insofar as it seeks to name the individual joint venturers as
defendants.

As grounds, the movants assert that they are not

listed as defendants in the caption or in the body of the complaint
as defendants, and, therefore, are entitled to dismissal.
In her response, plaintiff asserts that the three movants
have been identified as joint venturers in G.UB.MK Constructors, an
unincorporated
employer.

joint

venture

that

allegedly

was

plaintiff’s

Plaintiff states that the three moving parties have not

been sued in this matter as named defendants, but, rather, have
been served as members of an unincorporated joint venture as a
means of obtaining service of process upon the joint venture, as
provided in the federal and Tennessee rules of civil procedure.
Give

this

admission

by

plaintiff,

the

undersigned

Magistrate Judge finds that the motions to dismiss by the nonparty
movants

should

be

GRANTED

and

they

should

be

DISMISSED

as

defendants from this action. The undersigned expressly declines to
express any finding in this report and recommendation regarding the
sufficiency

of

service

of

process

on

defendant

G.UB.MK

Constructors.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge RECOMMENDS that the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of
WorleyParsons Group, Inc., Williams Plant Services, LLC, and URS
Energy & Construction, Inc. be GRANTED and that they be DISMISSED
as defendants in this action.

2

Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
any party has fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and
Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation, with the District Court.

Any party opposing said

objections shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of any
objections filed in this Report in which to file any responses to
said objections.

Failure to file specific objections within

fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can
constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111
(1986).
ENTERED this 2nd day of January 2013.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

3