Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02527/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02527-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

-1- 16cv2527-MMA (JLB)

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 

PATRICK CROSS, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

INFINITY ENERGY, INC.; and INFY 

MARKETING, LLC, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2527-MMA (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE THIRD PARTY 

COMPLAINT AGAINST VIRTUAL 

SALES SOLUTIONS 

[Doc. No. 21]

Plaintiff Patrick Cross (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint 

(“FAC”) against Defendants Infinity Energy, Inc. (“Infinity”) and INFY Marketing, LLC 

(“INFY,” collectively “Defendants”) on October 10, 2016, alleging violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 277, et seq. (“TCPA”). See Doc. No. 

1. On February 1, 2017, Infinity filed an answer to Plaintiff’s FAC. See Doc. No. 6. On 

February 7, 2017, INFY filed an answer to Plaintiff’s FAC. See Doc. No. 8. Defendants 

now move for leave to file a Third-Party Complaint against Virtual Sales Solutions. See 

Doc. No. 21. On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff Patrick Cross filed a statement of nonopposition regarding Defendants’ motion. See Doc. No. 22. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-02527-MMA-JLB Document 23 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 -2- 16cv2527-MMA (JLB)

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

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) provides, “[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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a). However, “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). “The purpose 

of this rule 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.” 

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. 

Here, the Court finds the interests of justice are served by permitting Defendants to 

file a Third-Party Complaint against Virtual Sales Solutions (“VSS”). INFY entered into 

a contract with VSS in order for VSS to provide marketing solicitation services to INFY. 

See Doc. No. 21-1 at 2. Pursuant to the parties’ contract, “VSS expressly agreed to 

indemnify INFY and Infinity. . . for all claims and damages arising out of VSS[’s] 

performance of its marketing duties contemplated by the Agreement.” Id. Defendants 

contend that pursuant to the indemnity provisions of the contract, VSS is responsible for 

any alleged violation of the TCPA, and any damages flowing therefrom. See id. Thus, 

permitting Defendants to file a Third-Party Complaint eliminates the need for Defendants 

to bring a separate action against VSS. See Southwest, 791 F.2d at 777. Additionally, 

Plaintiff does not oppose the filing of a Third-Party Complaint in this action. See Doc. 

No. 22. Finally, although Defendants technically filed the instant motion after the March 

29, 2017 deadline to join parties, amend pleadings, or to file additional pleadings as set 

forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 17), Defendants’ motion is well in advance of 

the April 3, 2018 trial date. As such, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-02527-MMA-JLB Document 23 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 -3- 16cv2527-MMA (JLB)

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court VACATES the previously scheduled 

hearing date and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for leave to file a Third-Party Complaint 

against Virtual Sales Solutions. Defendants must separately file the Third-Party 

Complaint, previously filed as “INFY Marketing, LLC’s Third-Party Complaint Against 

Virtual Sales Solutions” (Doc. No. 21-2 at 50), on the docket within three (3) days of this 

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 25, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02527-MMA-JLB Document 23 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3