Sun Products v. Lock & Load Industries
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Orderdenying 45 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 26 Motion for Leave to Filethird-party complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 1/31/12. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
THE SUN PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:11-cv-316-CW-PMW
v.
LOCK & LOAD INDUSTRIES LLC, a
California limited liability company,
District Judge Clark Waddoups
Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court are (1) Lock & Load Industries LLC’s
(“Defendant”) motion for leave to file a third-party complaint;2 and (2) The Sun Products
Corporation’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to strike Defendant’s third-party complaint or, in the
alternative, to sever the third-party claims and try them separately.3 The court has carefully
reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has
concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine the motions on the basis of the
written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f). The court will address the motions in turn.
1
See docket no. 30.
2
See docket no. 26.
3
See docket no. 45.
I. Defendant’ Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint
On September 30, 2011, Defendant filed its motion for leave to file a third-party
complaint.4 The motion became fully briefed on November 14, 2011.5 Plaintiff filed its most
recent amended complaint on November 18, 2011.6 On November 29, 2011, Defendant filed its
answer to that amended complaint, which was the first answer Defendant had filed in this case.7
Notwithstanding its previously filed motion for leave to file a third-party complaint, Defendant’s
answer included a third-party complaint against Xian Foreign Trade and Economic Development
Corporation, Ltd. and Jiangsu EqualChem Co., Ltd.8
The court first addresses Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s third-party complaint
should not be allowed. Defendant initially argued that the instant motion was governed by rule
15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, as Plaintiff has correctly noted, the motion
is actually governed by rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 14(a)(1) provides:
A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons
and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or
part of the claim against it. But the third-party plaintiff must, by
motion, obtain the court’s leave if it files the third-party complaint
more than 14 days after serving its original answer.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1).
4
See docket no. 26.
5
See docket nos. 33, 41.
6
See docket no. 42.
7
See docket no. 43.
8
See docket nos. 43, 48.
2
Although Plaintiff makes various arguments about whether Defendant’s third-party
complaint should be allowed under rule 14, the court concludes that the plain language of rule 14
is dispositive of that issue. As indicated above, rule 14(a)(1) permits a party to file a third-party
complaint without leave of court, provided that the third-party complaint is filed within 14 days
after the party files its original answer. Defendant’s original answer and its third-party complaint
were filed on the same day. Consequently, Defendant was allowed to file its third-party
complaint without leave of court. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for leave to file its third-party
complaint was unnecessary and is moot.
The court next addresses Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s third-party complaint
should not be allowed because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the proposed third-party
defendants. In response, Defendant argues, among other things, that Plaintiff does not have
standing to make jurisdictional arguments on behalf of the third-party defendants. The court
agrees with Defendant. “A party must have standing to raise objections to particular issues.”
Clark v. Assocs. Commercial Corp., 149 F.R.D. 629, 634 n.3 (D. Kan. 1993) (citing Warth v.
Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)) (other citation omitted). “Thus, because a defendant may
waive objections to the court’s jurisdiction over his person, ‘a lack of jurisdiction or venue
cannot be asserted by the original plaintiff as to the third-party claim. . . .’” Id. (quoting 4 C.
Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1445 at 353 (2d ed. 1990))
(alteration in original); see also Jenkins v. Smead Mfg. Co., No. 09-CV-0261-IEG (BLM), 2009
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101545, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009) (stating that personal jurisdiction and
venue are both “waivable by the affected parties, and therefore cannot be raised on their behalf
3
by anyone else”). Because Plaintiff does not have standing to make jurisdictional arguments on
behalf of the third-party defendants, its argument on that point fails.
II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Third-Party Complaint
or, in the Alternative, to Sever Third-Party Claims and Try Them Separately
In this motion, Plaintiff seeks alternative remedies with respect to Defendant’s third-party
complaint. Plaintiff first moves the court to strike the third-party complaint. For the same
reasons the court set forth in addressing the previous motion, that motion is denied.
Plaintiff alternatively moves the court to sever Defendant’s third-party claims and try
them separately. In support of that motion, Plaintiff argues that allowing the third-party claims to
proceed in this case would cause confusion, significant delays, and disruption. Plaintiff also
argues that allowing the third-party claims would prejudice Plaintiff’s right to pursue its remedies
against Defendant in an efficient and timely manner.
In response, Defendant argues that the third-party claims should be allowed because the
facts and issues involved in those claims are the same as the facts and issues implicated by the
other claims in this case. Defendant admits that allowing the third-party claims may cause some
delay, but it argues that it will be prejudiced if it is potentially found to be liable for the acts of
the third-party defendants.
Pursuant to rule 14(a)(4), “[a]ny party may move to strike the third-party claim, to sever
it, or to try it separately.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(4). “Rule 14(a) strives to promote judicial
efficiency by reducing multiplicitous litigation. Courts construe Rule 14(a) liberally, but can
exercise their discretion to strike, sever, or separately try third-party claims.” Nat’l Fire Ins. Co.
4
v. Nat’l Cable Television Coop., Inc., No. 10-2532-CM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40952, at *4 (D.
Kan. April 14, 2011) (citations omitted). “The granting of leave for a defendant to prosecute a
third party proceeding under Rule 14 rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” First Nat’l
Bank of Nocona v. Duncan Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 957 F.2d 775, 777 (10th. Cir. 1992).
Some of the relevant factors for a court to consider when
exercising this discretion include: (1) the benefits of a single
action versus prejudice to the other party and confusion, (2) the
timeliness of the request and prejudice to the plaintiff in delay, (3)
whether the main case would unnecessarily expand in scope, (4)
whether impleading new parties would unduly delay or complicate
the trial, and (5) whether the third-party plaintiff’s motion states
sufficient grounds for the court to evaluate the propriety of
third-party complaints.
Admin. Comm. of the Wal-Mart Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan v. Willard, 216 F.R.D. 511, 514
(D. Kan. 2003).
The court now turns to considering the relevant factors from the list above. First, and
most importantly, the court concludes that the benefits of a single action outweigh the potential
prejudice to Plaintiff created by the delay and confusion associated with allowing the third-party
claims to go forward in this case. Principles of judicial economy dictate that they should indeed
be allowed. As noted by Defendant, both Plaintiff’s claims and the third-party claims involve
many of the same facts and issues. Further, the court has determined that requiring Defendant to
litigate its claims against the third-party defendants in a separate action would be duplicative
because it would essentially require Defendant to litigate those same facts and issues twice.
5
Second, Defendant has filed its third-party complaint in a timely fashion, so there is no
prejudice to Plaintiff caused by any delay. Indeed, Plaintiff’s most recent amended complaint
was only recently filed, and Defendant filed a timely third-party complaint.
Finally, the court addresses whether allowing the third-party claims would unnecessarily
expand the case in scope or unduly delay or complicate the trial. It is true that Plaintiff has
identified several issues relative to service of process and choice of law issues that may delay and
complicate matters in this case. However, and as noted above, the court concludes that principles
of judicial economy outweigh any expansion in the scope of this case and potential delays and
complications.
For these reasons, the court concludes that the third-party claims should not be severed
and tried separately. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s third-party complaint
or, in the alternative, to sever the third-party claims and try them separately is denied.
*****
In summary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
9
Defendant’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint9 is MOOT.
See docket no. 26.
6
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s third-party complaint or, in the alternative,
to sever the third-party claims and try them separately10 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of January, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
10
See docket no. 45.
7
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?