Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00874/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00874-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 345
Nature of Suit: Marine Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1333ad Admiralty

---

– 1 – 19cv874

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

JAMES CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 19-cv-00874-BAS-KSC

ORDER:

1. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT (ECF No. 15); 

AND

2. GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE THIRD-PARTY 

COMPLAINT (ECF No. 16)

v.

HOT TUB CRUISIN, INC.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff James Cunningham filed suit against Defendant Hot Tub Cruisin, Inc. 

(“HTC”), alleging he suffered a severe hand injury while aboard a “hot tub boat” in 

San Diego’s Mission Bay. (Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Complaint pleads 

claims against HTC for: (1) negligence, (2) design and manufacturing defect, 

(3) strict products liability — failure to warn of defective condition, (4) negligent 

products liability, and (5) liability to passengers under 46 U.S.C. § 30102. (Id. ¶¶ 24–

60.) Presently before the Court are two pleadings motions. 

Case 3:19-cv-00874-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 19cv874

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

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

First, Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 

15.) The proposed First Amended Complaint adds two defendants who were 

allegedly involved in the design and manufacture of the hot tub boat—Pontoon Party 

Tub, LLC and Matthew Adam Schubert. (ECF No. 15-3.) Plaintiff explains that he 

initially named only HTC as a defendant because he believed “HTC was the 

manufacturer of the boat as well as its operator.” (ECF No. 15.) Hence, Plaintiff

seeks to add Pontoon Party Tub and Mr. Schubert as defendants for Plaintiff’s

products-related causes of action—claims 2, 3, and 4. (See ECF No. 15-3.) The First 

Amended Complaint also drops HTC from these causes of action. (See id.) HTC 

has filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 17.) 

“In general, a court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” 

Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir.

2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan,

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend 

only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the 

part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 

amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d at 1117 

(alteration in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

Here, in light of (i) the broad policy favoring amendments to pleadings and 

(ii) Defendant’s notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, the Court grants 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. 

II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

Second, HTC moves for leave to file a Third-Party Complaint for 

Indemnification against Christine Cunningham. (ECF No. 16.) In the proposed 

Third-Party Complaint, HTC alleges that Ms. Cunningham is the wife of Plaintiff 

James Cunningham. (ECF No. 16-2.) HTC claims Ms. Cunningham signed a rental 

Case 3:19-cv-00874-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 19cv874

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

agreement regarding the hot tub boat that includes a contractual indemnity clause. 

(Id.) Thus, HTC seeks to bring a claim for express contractual indemnity against Ms. 

Cunningham that will hold her “liable for all amounts for which HTC may be held 

liable to [Mr. Cunningham].” (Id.) Mr. Cunningham has not filed an opposition to 

HTC’s motion.

“A defending party may, as third-party 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. But 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)(1). “Thus, 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 

the third party’s liability is secondary or derivative.” United States v. One 1977 

Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 452 (9th Cir. 1983). The purpose of this procedure 

“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. Administrators, Inc. v. Rozay’s Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, Ms. Cunningham’s alleged liability is dependent on Mr. Cunningham’s 

claims against HTC, and her liability is derivate in light of the alleged contractual 

indemnity clause. Hence, the proposed Third-Party Complaint satisfies the 

requirements of Rule 14(a)(1). Further, allowing the Third-Party Complaint will 

promote judicial efficiency, and Mr. Cunningham has not opposed HTC’s motion. 

The Court therefore finds granting leave is appropriate. Ms. Cunningham will still 

have the opportunity to raise any defense under Rule 12 to the Third-Party Complaint. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, the Court grants HTC’s motion for 

leave to file its Third-Party Complaint.1

 

 1 Because HTC filed its motion under Rule 14(a)(1) and the Third-Party Complaint 

satisfies this rule, the Court does not consider whether the Third-Party Complaint would be proper 

Case 3:19-cv-00874-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 19cv874

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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file 

his First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff shall file his First Amended 

Complaint no later than January 24, 2020. 

Further, the Court GRANTS Defendant HTC’s motion for leave to file its

Third-Party Complaint (ECF No. 16). HTC shall file its Third-Party Complaint no 

later than January 24, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 14, 2020

 

under Rule 14(c), which involves admiralty or maritime claims. 

Case 3:19-cv-00874-BAS-KSC Document 18 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4