Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06057/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06057-10/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

PLAINTIFF O.A.R.S.

COMPANIES’ MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION OF COURT’S

ORDER OF APRIL 17, 2006 AND

STRIKING ITS THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINT

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 112 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff O.A.R.S. Companies, Inc. 

(Companies) moves to clarify the April 17, 2006, Order. ThirdParty Defendant Metal Craft, Inc. (MC) opposes the motion. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

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

It named O.A.R.S., Inc. (O.A.R.S.), OARS Canyonlands, Inc.

(Canyonlands), North American River Expeditions, Inc. (NARE), and

the jet boat (in rem) as Defendants. Id. Defendant O.A.R.S. and

Canyonlands filed answers on October 1, 2004. Doc. 4, O.A.R.S.

Answer; Doc. 5, Canyonlands Answer. The first amended complaint

was filed with leave of court on January 24, 2005. Doc. 18, FAC.

It dropped NARE and added Wendt as a Defendant. Id. O.A.R.S.,

Canyonlands, and Wendt filed answers on March 3, 2005. Doc. 19,

Canyonlands Answer; Doc. 20, O.A.R.S. Answer; Doc. 21, Wendt

Answer. The second amended complaint was filed with leave of

court on July 26, 2005. Doc. 40, SAC. It dropped O.A.R.S. and

added O.A.R.S. Companies (Companies) as Defendant. Id. The

answers to the SAC were filed by Defendants Canyonlands,

Companies, and Wendt (collectively, Defendants/Third-Party

Plaintiffs) on September 9, 2005. Doc. 45, Canyonlands Answer to

SAC; Doc. 46, Wendt Answer to SAC; Doc. 47, Companies Answer to

SAC. 

Together with their answers, Defendants/Third-Party

Plaintiffs (Defs./Th-P Pls.) O.A.R.S., Canyonlands, and George

Wendt filed third-party complaints against Defendant/Third-Party

Defendant (Def./Th-P Def.) MC. Id. On November 18, 2005,

Def./Th-P Def. MC filed an answer to Def./Th-P Pl. Companies’

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 112 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 7
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

third-party complaint, and motions to strike Defs./Th-P Pls.

Canyonlands’ and Wendt’s third-party complaints. Doc. 54, MC

Answer; Doc. 55, Mot. to Strike Canyonlands Compl.; Doc. 56, Mot.

to Strike Wendt Compl. The motions were heard on February 6,

2006. The April 17, 2006, Order struck the third-party

complaints of Defs./Th-P Pls. Canyonlands, Wendt, and Companies. 

Doc. 91, Order. 

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, 3-13, is incorporated

herein by reference. 

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 Defs./Th-P

Pls., which he alleges was faulty and undersized. Plaintiff

alleges negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, breach

of the warranty of seaworthiness under general maritime law, and

willful and arbitrary failure to pay maintenance and cure. Doc.

78, Opp., at 1-2. Defs./Th-P Pls. allege MC designed and built

the boat trailer and 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:

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 112 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 7
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

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 thirdparty plaintiff. The third-party plaintiff need

not obtain leave to make the service if the thirdparty plaintiff files the third-party complaint

not later than 10 days after serving the original

answer. Otherwise the third-party 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

The April 17, 2006, Order granted Def./Th-P Def. MC’s

motions to strike Defs./Th-P Pls. Canyonlands and Wendt’s thirdparty complaints. Doc. 91, Order, 2, 8. The Order stated that

for the purposes of Rule 14, the “original answer” is the answer

to either the original complaint, or to an amended complaint,

provided that the basis for impleader is that which is new, i.e.,

“original,” in the answer to the amended complaint. Id., 5-6. 

The Order ruled that:

Under this approach, Third-Party Plaintiffs had to

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 112 Filed 07/26/06 Page 4 of 7
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

obtain leave of court before filing the thirdparty 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. [citation] 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.

 

Id., 6. The Order also ruled the August 4, 2005, Order, Doc. 44,

Order, did not extend this deadline. Defs./Th-P Pls. Canyonlands

and Wendt’s third-party complaints against Def./Th-P Def. MC were

ordered stricken on these grounds. Doc. 91, Order, 8. 

Def./Th-P Pl. Companies’ third-party complaint was not

ordered stricken. MC answered Companies’ third-party complaint,

and did not move to strike it. MC moved to strike only

Canyonlands’ and Wendt’s third-party complaints. See Doc. 54, MC

Answer; Doc. 55, Mot. to Strike Canyonlands Compl.; Doc. 56, Mot.

to Strike Wendt Compl. Companies was made a Defendant only in

the SAC, not in the original complaint or the FAC; the SAC was

the “original complaint” as to Companies, and Companies’ answer

to the SAC was for this reason the “original answer.” Companies

filed the third-party complaint against MC together with its

answer. Since this is within ten days of Companies’ original

answer, Rule 14 allowed Companies to file the third-party

complaint against MC without leave of court. 

However, a third-party complaint served without leave of

court is still subject to a motion to strike or to vacate under

the eighth sentence of Rule 14(a), which provides that “any party

may move to strike the third-party claim, or for its severance or

separate trial.” Rule 14(a), Fed.R.Civ.P; see 6 Wright, Miller &

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 112 Filed 07/26/06 Page 5 of 7
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

Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc.: Civil 2d. § 1454; 3 Moore’s Fed. Prac.

§ 14.20[2] (3d ed. 2000) (“the court may refuse to allow or to

retain the third-party claim, even though the third party has

been imple[d] properly without leave of court”). 

The Order stated:

The late impleader of MC will unnecessarily delay

the 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. ThirdParty Plaintiffs’ delay in filing the third-party

complaints is unexplained.

 

Doc. 91, Order, 7. 

Companies is Canyonlands’ parent company. See Doc. 36,

Declaration of Kurt Micklow in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to

File SAC [hereinafter, “Micklow Decl.”], ¶ 3. Although Companies

was first made a Defendant by the SAC in July 2005, Doc. 40, SAC,

it was given notice by the August 5, 2004, complaint that

Plaintiff sought to sue the parent company of Plaintiff’s

employer, Canyonlands, an original (and current) Defendant, and

that but for an error Plaintiff would have sued Companies:

Plaintiff was originally informed and believed

that the “parent” company of [Canyonlands] was a

related company named [O.A.R.S.]. Based on that

information and belief, Plaintiff named and sued

[O.A.R.S.] as a [D]efendant in the original and

first amended complaints.

 

Doc. 36, Micklow Decl., ¶ 3. The original complaint stated

product-liability claims. Doc. 91, Order, 6. Despite this

notice to both Canyonlands and its corporate parent Companies,

these Defendants did not take timely action to ensure MC’s

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 112 Filed 07/26/06 Page 6 of 7
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

presence in this suit until after the SAC was filed. Companies

could have sought to intervene to timely file a third-party

complaint against MC, since O.A.R.S. had not done so. The

parties’ delay is unexplained. 

The April 17, 2006, Order was based on the express purpose

of avoiding the complication and delay inclusion of the thirdparty complaint against MC would cause. Allowing Companies to

implead MC unjustifiably defeats the purpose and spirit of the

order striking the third-party complaint. 

An implied indemnity declaratory relief claim need not be

filed before underlying liability is established on Plaintiff’s

claims. The implied indemnity claim is more centered in Utah,

and as in Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480

U.S. 102 (1987), the Eastern District of California has

negligible interest in the dispute between the manufacturer and

purchaser for design defect. See Cermetek, Inc. v. Butler Avpak,

Inc., 573 F.2d 1370, 1382 (9 Cir. 1978) (unnecessary party’s th

residence not taken into account in change of venue

determination). 

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Def./Th-P Pl. Companies’ motion

to clarify is GRANTED. Def./Th-P Def. MC’s motion to strike

Companies’ third-party complaint is GRANTED. 

SO ORDERED

DATED: July _26, 2006.

_/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER_______

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 112 Filed 07/26/06 Page 7 of 7