Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06057/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06057-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R. GIL MCDOUGALD,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

O.A.R.S. COMPANIES, INC., a

corporation, OARS CANYONLANDS,

INC., a corporation, GEORGE

WENDT, an individual, M/V METAL

CRAFT JET BOAT bearing VIN

1FWE02522XAO23408, her engines,

tackle, apparel, furniture, and

appurtenances, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

 Defendants.

O.A.R.S. COMPANIES, INC., a

corporation, OARS CANYONLANDS,

INC., a corporation, GEORGE

WENDT, an individual,

 Third-Party Plaintiffs,

 v. 

METAL CRAFT, INC., a

corporation,

 Third-Party Defendant.

1:04-CV-6057 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT METAL CRAFT,

INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINTS

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 8
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

2

I. INTRODUCTION

Third-Party Defendant Metal Craft, Inc. (MC), moves to

strike the third-party complaints filed by O.A.R.S. Companies,

Inc., OARS Canyonlands, Inc., and George Wendt (collectively,

“the OARS Defendants” or “Third-Party Plaintiffs”). Third-Party

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The complaint was filed on August 5, 2004. Doc. 1,

Complaint. It named O.A.R.S., Inc., OARS Canyonlands, Inc.,

North American River Expeditions, Inc. (NARE), and the jet boat

(in rem) as Defendants. O.A.R.S. and Canyonlands filed answers

on October 1, 2004. Docs. 4 & 5. With leave of court, Plaintiff

filed a first amended complaint on January 24, 2005. It removed

NARE and added Wendt as a Defendant. O.A.R.S., Canyonlands, and

Wendt filed answers on March 3, 2005. Docs. 19-21. Plaintiff

filed a second amended complaint with leave of court on July 26,

2005. It removed O.A.R.S. and added O.A.R.S. Companies

(Companies) as Defendant. See Opp. to Mot. to Strike, at 3-4. 

The OARS Defendants filed their answers to the second amended

complaint on September 9, 2005. Docs. 45-47. 

Together with their answers, the OARS Defendants

(hereinafter, “Third-Party Plaintiffs”) filed third-party

complaints against MC, alleging product liability. 

III. BACKGROUND

The factual background set forth in the court’s order

denying the motion of Defendants O.A.R.S., Inc., Canyonlands, and

Wendt to transfer venue, Doc. 31, Order at 3-13, is incorporated

herein by reference. 

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 04/17/06 Page 2 of 8
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

3

Plaintiff claims that he was injured while working in the

course of his employment for Defendant Canyonlands as the

operator of a jet boat on the Colorado River in Utah. Plaintiff

claims he injured his lower back while attempting to load the jet

boat onto a boat trailer using equipment, furnished by the OARS

Defendants, which he alleges to have been faulty and undersized. 

Plaintiff alleges negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.

§ 688, breach of the warranty of seaworthiness under the general

maritime law, and willful and arbitrary failure to pay

maintenance and cure. Doc. 78, Opp., at 1-2. Third-Party

Plaintiffs have alleged that MC designed and built the boat

trailer and that MC is the actively negligent party responsible

for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Doc. 63, Mot. to Change Venue

at 1. 

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 14(a), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

provides in relevant part:

At any time after commencement of the action a

defending party, as a third-party plaintiff, may cause

a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not

a party to the action who is or may be liable to the

third-party plaintiff for all or part of the

plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff.

The third-party plaintiff need not obtain leave to make

the service if the third-party plaintiff files the

third-party complaint not later than 10 days after

serving the original answer. Otherwise the third-party

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 04/17/06 Page 3 of 8
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

4

plaintiff must obtain leave on motion upon notice to

all parties to the action.

Rule 14(a), F.R.Civ.P.

“Except where the impleader is filed at the time of the

original answer, it is discretionary with the court.” Schwarzer,

et al., Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial, § 7:307. “Defendant need

not obtain leave of court to serve and file a third-party

complaint if it is filed within 10 days after defendant serves

its original answer to the complaint in the main action.” Id.,

at § 7:330. “In all other situations, leave of court to serve

and file a third-party complaint must be sought by motion.” Id.,

at § 7:331 (citing Irwin v. Mascott, 94 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1056

(N.D. Cal. 2000)) (emphasis added). 

V. ANALYSIS

MC argues that the third-party complaints should be stricken

on the grounds that they were not filed within ten days after the

original answer was filed on October 1, 2004, and were not filed

with leave of the court. Third-party Plaintiffs argue (1) that,

for purposes of Rule 14(a), the original answer is the one first

filed after any amended complaint, so the third-party complaints

they filed together with their answers to the second amended

complaint fall within the ten-day deadline for filing without

leave of court; (2) alternatively, that the order of August 4,

2005, which set a scheduling conference for November 10, 2005,

allowed them to file the third-party complaints without leave of

court. 

1. “Original Answer”

As the court in F.T.C .v. Capital City Mortgage Corp., 186

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 04/17/06 Page 4 of 8
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

5

F.R.D. 245 (D.D.C. 1999), pointed out, three interpretations of

“original answer” are possible: 

Under a “plain language” interpretation, the “original”

answer is the one that responds to the “original”

complaint. If the complaint is amended, subsequent

answers would be designated as the “Answer to the

[First, Second, etc.] Amended Complaint” and would not

be considered “original.” Cf. Charles Alan Wright, et

al., 6 Federal Practice & Procedure § 1454 at 422 (2d

ed. 1990) (characterizing period within 10 days of

“original answer” as “early in the proceeding”).

Under a more nuanced, functional reading, the “original

answer” can be an answer to an amended complaint, so

long as the basis for impleader is that which is new,

i.e., “original,” in the answer to the amended

complaint. See Ez-Tixz, Inc. v. Hit-Tix, Inc., 1995 WL

77589 *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1995); Ahern v. Gaussoin,

104 F.R.D. 37, 39 (D.Or.1984); In re “Agent Orange”

Product Liability Litig., 100 F.R.D. 778, 780 (E.D.N.Y.

1984).

Finally, one court has reasoned that because an amended

complaint which stands alone supplants any prior

complaints, such an amended complaint becomes the

original complaint and therefore the answer to such

amended complaint becomes the “original answer” within

the meaning of Rule 14(a). See Nelson v. Quimby Island

Reclamation District Facilities Corp., 491 F.Supp.

1364, 1387 (N.D.Cal. 1980).

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 04/17/06 Page 5 of 8
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

6

Each of these approaches concerns when the filing of

the original third-party complaint may be done without

leave of court.

F.T.C., 186 F.R.D. at 247. 

The second interpretation of “original answer” appears to be

the majority view, and the best reasoned of the three.

Under this approach, Third-Party Plaintiffs had to obtain

leave of court before filing the third-party complaint. The

basis for impleading MC did not first appear in the SAC; a

product liability claim was alleged by Plaintiff in the original

complaint. See Doc. 1, Complaint, ¶¶ 9, 11 (alleging that

Plaintiff was injured by “undersized and faulty equipment” that

was “dangerous, defective, and unfit for [its] intended

purpose”). This gave Defendants clear notice that Plaintiff

believed the trailer was faulty, but did not sue the

manufacturer. Defendants should have filed any products

liability indemnity third-party complaint within ten (10) days of

the initial answer. 

2. The Order of August 4, 2005

Third-Party Plaintiffs argue alternatively that the court

granted them leave to file the third-party complaint in its Order

of August 4, 2005. Doc. 74, Mem. in Opp., at 2. The Order

approved a stipulation which Plaintiff and the OARS

Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs had made two days earlier. In

it, the parties “included statements indicating that defendant

desired to bring in a third party based on information recently

developed at depositions and inspections in late June, 2005.” 

Doc. 74, Mem. in Opp., at 6 (citing Doc. 41, Stipulation and

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 04/17/06 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Proposed Order, at 2). Since the Order approved the stipulation,

Third-Party Plaintiffs argue, they “obtain[ed] leave on motion

upon notice to all parties to the action,” as Rule 14(a) demands.

The parties to the stipulation requested only that “the

current pre-trial and trial schedule be vacated and a new

scheduling conference be scheduled at a date and time convenient

for the [c]ourt in approximately ninety (90) days from the date

of this stipulation and proposed order.” Doc. 41, Stipulation

and Proposed Order, at 3. The stipulation did not request leave

to file a third-party complaint, and the court in approving the

stipulation, which obviated the need for a motion for leave to

file a third-party complaint, did not grant such leave or order

the filing of a third-party complaint. The stipulation only

stated the products-liability claim as a reason for changing the

case schedule. Neither the stipulation nor the order could

foreclose rights of the trailer manufacturer, who was not a party

to the action. 

The late impleader of MC will unnecessarily delay

adjudication of the case, given the likely necessity of expert

witness testimony regarding the design and manufacture of the

trailer, the likely necessity of additional discovery regarding

MC’s affirmative defenses, and the likelihood of various extra

pre-trial and dispositive motions that will all unjustifiably

tend to increase the time necessary to decide the controversy. 

Third-Party Plaintiffs’ delay in filing the third-party

complaints is unexplained. Moreover, an implied indemnity

declaratory relief claim need not be filed before underlying

liability is established on Plaintiff’s claims. See, e.g.,

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 04/17/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Wilson v. City of Chicago, 120 F.3d 681, 687 (7 Cir. 1997); th

Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc. v. Shepard Niles, Inc., 11 F.3d

399, 412 (3 Cir. 1993). There is no allegation that any rd

Defendant has tendered the defense of this case to the trailer

manufacturer, alleged as indemnitor, or that any party will be

prejudiced if the indemnity claim is tried in a subsequent case

if Plaintiff should succeed against the employer. 

VI. CONCLUSION

MC’s motion to strike the third-party complaints is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED

DATED: April 17 2006.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

____________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 04/17/06 Page 8 of 8