Coralli et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
Filing
116
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Dkt. 113 ) is CONDITIONALLY DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. be given the opportunity to replead facts sufficient to support the alleged responsibility of Brent Coralli. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 9/22/2016. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
STING SOCCER OPERATIONS GROUP
LP, STING SOCCER FOUNDATION,
STING SPORTS GROUP LLC, STING
GROUP HOLDINGS LLC, TEXAS
TITANS FC LLC, and ROYAL NATION
LLC,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-00127
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party
(Dkt. #113). After reviewing the relevant pleadings and motion, the Court finds that the motion
should be conditionally denied and Defendant afforded an opportunity to replead sufficient facts.
BACKGROUND
The present action arises from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“JPMC”) closure of
Plaintiffs’ bank accounts. Until the pre-trial conference, Plaintiffs consisted of several entities
and an individual that operate and facilitate soccer clubs throughout Texas (Dkt. #41 at p.3). One
of the services Plaintiffs provide to member teams includes opening separate bank accounts for
each team (Dkt. #41 at p.3). Each team has a treasurer and manager who possess the ability to
deposit and withdraw money from their team account for their respective team operations
(Dkt. #41 at p.3). These team accounts were maintained at JPMC (Dkt. #41 at p.4). On or about
August 30, 2013, JPMC closed and/or restricted all of the accounts Plaintiffs held at JPMC
(Dkt. #41 at p.4).
On August 23, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to dismiss Brent Coralli,
Coralli Family Limited Partnership, Ltd., and Vola LLC (Dkt. #106). On August 24, 2016, the
Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #112).
On September 1, 2016, JPMC filed a motion seeking to designate Brent Coralli as a
responsible third party (Dkt. #113). On September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a response
(Dkt. #114). Trial is set to begin on September 26, 2016 (Dkt. #111).
LEGAL STANDARD
Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code section 33.004 provides that “[a] defendant
may seek to designate a person as a responsible third party by filing a motion for leave to
designate that person as a responsible third party.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.004(a).
Leave should be granted unless another party files an objection to the designation. TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.004(f). If an objection is filed, the court should allow the designation
unless the objecting party establishes:
(1) the defendant did not plead sufficient facts concerning the alleged
responsibility of the person to satisfy the pleading requirement of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) after having been granted leave to
replead, the defendant failed to plead sufficient facts concerning the
alleged responsibility of the person to satisfy the pleading requirements of
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.004(G). A responsible third party is defined as follows:
[A]ny person who is alleged to have caused or contributed to causing in any way
the harm for which recovery of damages is sought, whether by negligent act or
omission, by any defective or unreasonably dangerous product, by other conduct
or activity that violates an applicable legal standard, or by any combination of
these. The term “responsible third party” does not include a seller eligible for
indemnity under Section 82.002
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6).
2
Most district courts have found that section 33.004(a) is applicable in a diversity case.
See Withers v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., 13 F.Supp.3d 686, 688 (E.D. Tex. 2014);
Alvarez v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 3:06-cv-0340-D, 2006 WL 1522999, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May
8, 2006); Muniz v. T.K. Stanley, Inc., No. L-06-cv-126, 2007 WL 1100466, at *2 (S.D. Tex.
April 11, 2007).
ANALYSIS
JPMC argues that Brent Coralli should be designated as a responsible third party because
Plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused by Coralli’s actions. JPMC argues that it closed
Plaintiffs’ accounts because of Coralli’s highly publicized conviction for illegal gambling
(Dkt. #113 at p.2).
The claims remaining for trial are: (1) tortious interference with contract–customers; (2)
wrongful dishonor; (3) business disparagement; (4) breach of contract-improper restriction; and
(5) breach of contract–privacy policy. Chapter 33 only applies to claims based in tort. TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.002(a). Therefore, only the first three causes of action are relevant to
this motion.
The Court finds that JPMC has not pleaded sufficient facts showing that Coralli caused or
contributed to causing, in any way, the harm for which recovery is sought by way of violating an
applicable legal standard with regards to the remaining tort claims in this suit.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party by
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Dkt. #113) is CONDITIONALLY DENIED.
3
.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. be given the
opportunity to replead facts sufficient to support the alleged responsibility of Brent Coralli.
SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2016.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?