Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02632/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02632-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

1

3:18-cv-2632-CAB-(AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD MAY and JUDITH MAY, as 

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-2632-CAB-(AGS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD PARTY 

COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 11]

Currently before the Court is Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s (“Allstate”) 

motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint. [Doc. No. 11.] As of the date of this 

order, Plaintiffs have not filed a response in opposition. The Court finds the motion 

suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument in accordance 

with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted.

Background

On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff brought suit in the Superior Court of the State of 

California against Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) asserting Breach of 

Contract and Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing [Doc. No. 1-2]. Plaintiffs 

allege that on February 21, 2018, their primary residence (the Subject Property) was 

Case 3:18-cv-02632-CAB-AGS Document 13 Filed 02/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-2632-CAB-(AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

damaged by sudden water intrusion that was covered under the Insurance Policy issued by 

Defendant, but that Defendant denied the claim. [Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 7.] 

Allstate now seeks leave to file a third party complaint against Mission Restoration 

and Express Dry, the contractors who performed the demolition and restoration work on 

the Subject Property. [Doc. No. 11-1 at 6.] Allstate contends that despite being asked on 

numerous occasions to stop removing and disposing of materials until after Allstate is 

notified of the loss and consulted regarding the proper response, Mission Restoration and 

Express Dry removed and disposed of evidence of water damage at the Subject Property 

before informing Allstate. [Id.] This disposal of evidence resulted in Allstate being unable 

to properly investigate Plaintiffs’ claim, which, in turn, led to the denial of Plaintiffs’ 

insurance claim. [Id.]

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) provides for service of a third-party impleader 

complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to [the original 

defendant] for all or part of the claim against it. Defendant need not obtain leave of the 

court to serve and file a third-party complaint, if is it filed within 10 days after defendant 

serves its original answer to the complaint in the main action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). In 

all other circumstances, leave of the court to serve and file a third party complaint must be 

sought by motion. Id.

The purpose of impleader is to promote judicial efficiency by eliminating the need 

for the defendant to bring a separate action against the parties secondarily or derivatively 

liable to the defendant on account of the plaintiff's claim. Southwest Admin., Inc. v. Rozay's 

Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986). The decision whether to permit a third party 

claim under Rule 14 is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. But since the rule 

is designed to reduce multiplicity of litigation, it is construed liberally in favor of allowing 

impleader. Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio L.L.C., 166 F.3d 389, 394 (1st Cir. 1999).

Here, Defendant’s reasons for filing a third-party complaint against Mission 

Restoration and Express Dry meets the standard set forth in Federal Rule14(a) because 

Case 3:18-cv-02632-CAB-AGS Document 13 Filed 02/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-2632-CAB-(AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Allstate’s liability to the Mays is dependent on the outcome of Allstate’s counterclaim 

against Mission Restoration and Express Dry. Allstate may be entitled to equitable 

indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief from Mission Restoration and Express Dry 

in proportion to their level of responsibility for plaintiffs’ damages. Moreover, Defendant

has submitted its motion timely before the January 18, 2019, cutoff to join other parties. 

[See Doc. No. 10 at 1.] In addition, any prejudice to Plaintiffs by the addition of Mission 

Restoration and Express Dry is minimal, the claims arise from the same factual setting and 

involve the same witnesses and evidence, discovery has only just commenced, and the trial 

date in this case is set for December 9, 2019. Finally, such prejudice is greatly outweighed 

by the judicial efficiency of having all of the claims regarding the Subject Project and 

related insurance policy adjudicated in the same forum. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion 

for leave to file a third party complaint is GRANTED.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1) Defendant’s motion for leave to file a third party complaint is GRANTED; 

2) Defendant shall file the third party complaint no later than March 7, 2019, and 

shall serve the complaint on the third party as expeditiously as possible;

3) Within three days of this order, the parties shall contact the chambers of 

Magistrate Judge Andrew Schopler to schedule a status/case management 

conference to discuss the need to extend discovery and reset pre-trial dates once 

the third party has appeared in the action.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02632-CAB-AGS Document 13 Filed 02/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3