Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03277/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03277-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BIRD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEEFE KAPLAN MARITIME, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03277-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE THIRD-PARTY 

COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 49

INTRODUCTION

In this case for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranty, Plaintiff James Bird 

alleges his marine vessel sustained damage as a result of improper services performed by 

Defendants Keefe Kaplan Maritime, Inc. (“KKMI”) and Eric Koster dba J&H Marine.1 KKMI 

now moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1) for leave to file a third-party 

complaint against Christopher Oschek, the captain of the vessel. Dkt. No. 49. Bird has filed an 

Opposition (Dkt. No. 51), and KKMI filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 53). The Court finds this matter 

suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the August 20, 2015 hearing. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal 

authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS KKMI’s Motion for the reasons set 

forth below.

BACKGROUND

Bird owns a marine vessel known as the Water Song. First Am. Compl. ¶ 9, Dkt. No. 7. 

KKMI and J&H Marine performed services on the Water Song pursuant to an agreement with 

Bird. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Bird alleges that on or about July 24, 2013, the Water Song sustained severe 

 

1 An Entry of Default was entered as to Eric Koster on February 18, 2015. Dkt. No. 35. 

Case 3:14-cv-03277-JD Document 56 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

damage due to KKMI’s and J&H Marine’s improper services, which resulted in a loss of the 

vessel’s use and value and caused Bird to incur significant repair costs. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. 

Based on these allegations, Bird filed his initial Complaint on July 21, 2014, alleging three 

causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, and (3) breach of warranty. Dkt. No. 1. 

He subsequently filed his First Amended Complaint on August 11, 2014, alleging the same causes 

of action. 

KKMI filed the present Motion on July 15, 2015, stating its counsel deposed Christopher 

Oschek on June 19, 2015, and believes his testimony establishes he was either wholly or partially 

at fault for any damage sustained by the Water Song. Mot. at 1. KKMI contends it will be 

entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from Oschek, should it be found responsible for any of 

the damage claimed by Bird. Id. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1) provides that a “defending party may, as thirdparty 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.” The purpose of Rule 14 is “to promote judicial efficiency by 

eliminating the necessity for the defendant to bring a separate action against a third individual who 

may be secondarily or derivatively liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s original 

claim.” Sw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Rozay’s Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986). “Therefore, 

courts have construed the rule liberally in favor of allowing impleader.” Lehman v. Revolution 

Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389, 393 (1st Cir. 1999); Universal Green Sols., LLC v. VII Pac Shores 

Inv’rs, LLC, 2013 WL 5272917, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2013). 

However, “a third-party claim may be asserted only when the third party’s liability is in 

some way dependent on the outcome of the main claim and is secondary or derivative thereto.” 

Stewart v. Am. Int’l Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 199 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Great Am. Ins. Co. 

v. Chang, 2013 WL 183976, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013). “The crucial characteristic of a Rule 

14 claim is that [the] defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability 

asserted against him by the original plaintiff” and so “[t]he mere fact that the alleged third-party 

claim arises from the same transaction or set of facts as the original claim is not enough.” Stewart, 

Case 3:14-cv-03277-JD Document 56 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

845 F.2d at 200 (internal quotation omitted). 

“The decision to allow a third-party defendant to be impleaded under rule 14 is entrusted 

to the sound discretion of the trial court.” United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 

444, 452 (9th Cir. 1983). In exercising its discretion, the Court must “balance the desire to avoid a 

circuitry of actions and to obtain consistent results against any prejudice that the plaintiff might 

suffer from complications of the case.” Irwin v. Mascott, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1056 (N.D. Cal.

2000) (quoting Somportex Ltd. v. Phil. Chewing Gum Corp., 453 F.2d 435, 439 n.6 (3d Cir. 

1971)). In making this determination, courts usually consider the following factors: (1) prejudice 

to the original plaintiff; (2) complication of issues at trial; (3) likelihood of trial delay; and (4) 

timeliness of the motion to implead. Id.

DISCUSSION

KKMI seeks leave to file a third-party complaint against Oschek based upon evidence it 

obtained during his June 19 deposition, which it alleges demonstrates his liability for all or part of 

the damages Bird claims. Mot. at 8. KKMI provides the following allegations regarding Oschek, 

which it states were previously unknown to it: (1) He did not carry out a reasonable pre-voyage 

inspection of the Water Song; (2) he did nothing to insure the swim step hatch was sealed so the 

swim step compartment would not take on water; (3) he did nothing to insure the other two swim 

step hatches were sealed against the incursion of seawater; (4) he did not discover the holes 

between the swim step compartments and the lazarette to insure that, if water entered the swim 

step compartments at the back of the vessel, it would not progress into the lazarette; (5) he did not 

monitor the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather broadcasts for the time 

and location into which he navigated the vessel; (6) he navigated the vessel directly into the 

coastal area for which advisories had been given; (7) he kept no record and has no record of 

carrying out regular checks of the vessel’s various compartments during the voyage, which would 

include checking the master stateroom, lazarette, and swim step; and (8) he did not discover the 

water incursion until it had already flooded the swim step and lazarette. Id. at 4-6.

Bird counters he will suffer prejudice if the Court permits KKMI to file its third-party 

complaint because he disclosed Oschek as the captain of the Water Song in his initial disclosures 

Case 3:14-cv-03277-JD Document 56 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

in December 2014, yet KKMI did not depose him until June 2015. Opp’n at 2. He also notes the 

deadline to seek leave to amend pleadings was March 2, 2015, discovery closes in less than one 

month, and trial is scheduled for December 2015. Id. Bird argues a third-party complaint against 

Oschek will necessitate a continuance of all discovery and trial deadlines. Id. at 3. 

Having reviewed the parties’ positions, the Court finds the Motion should be granted. 

First, regarding Bird’s contention that some delay in trial will arise due to the third-party 

complaint, there is no showing that any delay would be substantial enough to outweigh the gains 

in judicial efficiency accomplished by obviating the need for a separate action by KKMI against 

Oschek. See Rozay’s Transfer, 791 F.2d at 777 (“The purpose of [Rule 14] is to promote judicial 

efficiency by eliminating the necessity for the defendant to bring a separate action against a third 

individual who may be secondarily or derivatively liable to the defendant for all or part of the 

plaintiff's original claim.”). Therefore, the delay in resolution of this case caused by permitting 

the third-party complaint does not justify denying the Motion. 

Second, because Oschek will already be a witness at trial, and his involvement in the 

damages sustained to the Water Song will likely be litigated regardless of whether KKMI is 

permitted to file a third-party complaint, the Court finds granting the Motion would not 

substantially complicate trial. To the extent KKMI has an actionable claim against Oschek, 

resolving all disputes in one litigation would “avoid a circuitry of actions” and inconsistent results. 

Irwin, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 1056. With discovery still open and the parties prepared to attend 

mediation later this month, Bird does not show that any delay would be substantial enough to 

outweigh the benefit of resolving all issues in one proceeding. See Susilo v. Robertson, 2013 WL 

4213902, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013). Further, as to any prejudice Bird might claim if

Oscheck is brought in, the Court could entertain a motion to bifurcate if any party is able to make 

a strong showing that trying all claims at the same time would prejudice that party’s case.

Third, regarding its delay in filing this Motion, KKMI maintains that prior to taking 

Oschek’s deposition, no other evidence obtained in discovery revealed Oschek’s alleged acts and 

omissions. Mot. at 6. KKMI contends it was not until Bird’s deposition in May 2015, when 

KKMI learned Bird was only able to testify as to basic information following the incident based 

Case 3:14-cv-03277-JD Document 56 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

on what Osckek verbally told him, that KKMI realized it needed to depose Oschek. Id. at 7. 

Further, part of the delay was due to the need to resolve KKMI’s prior motion to bring Bird’s 

insurer into the action. Dkt. No. 20. After the Court denied that motion on March 5, 2015 (Dkt. 

No. 39), KKMI subpoenaed the insurer’s records on March 6, 2015, intending to depose Bird after 

the records were produced. Reply at 3. Given this procedural delay, Plaintiff does not offer any 

explanation regarding why KKMI should have uncovered this information sooner, and the Court 

therefore finds no grounds for denying the Motion due to KKMI’s delay. See Susilo, 2013 WL 

4213902, at *4 (finding no reason to doubt defendants’ assertion that they uncovered the relevant 

agreement during discovery); cf. Zero Tolerance Entm’t, Inc. v. Ferguson, 254 F.R.D. 123, 127-28 

(C.D. Cal. 2008) (denying leave where defendant waited three months from the time when it had 

clear notice of the third-party claim to request impleader). The Court has no reason to believe 

KKMI makes this assertion in bad faith. Regardless, even if the Motion could have been brought 

earlier, the Court is not persuaded that this delay alone justifies denying KKMI’s request. See 

Square 1 Bank v. Lo, 2014 WL 1154031, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2014) (failure to bring Rule 14 

motion in a timely fashion, without more, is not valid reason to deny motion).

CONCLUSION

The Court finds each factor weighs in favor of allowing KKMI’s third-party complaint 

against Oschek. The benefit of resolving the entire dispute in one case outweighs any resulting 

prejudice or delay to Bird. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS

KKMI’s Motion. KKMI shall e-file its complaint by August 7, 2015 (no chambers copy is 

required). The parties, including Oschek, shall appear for a Case Management Conference on

September 10, 2015. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by September 3, 

2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03277-JD Document 56 Filed 08/06/15 Page 5 of 5