Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00511/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00511-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

NICHOLAS KORMYLO, M.D.;

KIMBERLY KORMYLO; BRYCE

KORMYLO, by and through his

guardian ad litem KIMBERLY

KORMYLO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-cv-0511 JM (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINT

vs.

FOREVER RESORTS, LLC doing

business as CALVILLE BAY

RESORT & MARINA; KENNETH

WILLIAMS, AND DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

On June 30, 2014, Defendants Forever Resorts, LLC and Kenneth Williams

(collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint. 

(Dkt. No. 44). The third-party complaint seeks equitable indemnity, comparative

indemnity, and declaratory relief apportioning liability against the Boy Scouts of

America, Boy Scouts of America, San Diego-Imperial Council (collectively “BSA”),

and the adult leaders of Boy Scouts of America Team 719, including but not limited

to Robin Maxfield Jackman, William Dale, Robert Jafek, James Michael Ledakis, Eric

Jonathan Sanford, Robert Shumway, and David Taylor (“Adult Leaders of BSA Team

719”) (collectively, “Proposed Third-Party Defendants”). On July 21, 2014, Plaintiffs

filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion, (Dkt. No. 45), and Defendants filed their

- 1 - 13-cv-0511 JM (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-00511-JM-WVG Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 1 of 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

reply on July 28, 2014, (Dkt. No. 46). Having reviewed the parties’ briefing, the court

finds this matter suitable for resolution on the papers without oral argument pursuant

to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion for

leave to file a third-party complaint is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 14 provides that “[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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1).

“The decision whether to implead a third party defendant is within the sound discretion

of the district court.” Southwest Administrators, Inc. V. Rozay’s Transfer, 791 F.2d

769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986). Courts consider the following factors when ruling on a

motion for leave to file a third-party complaint: (a) prejudice to the original plaintiff;

(b) complication of issues at trial; (c) likelihood of trial delay; and (d) timeliness of the

motion to implead. See Irwin v. Mascott, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2000).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ original complaint alleges Kenneth Williams, an employee of Forever

Resorts, LLC, injured Nicholas Kormylo by hitting himwith a boat while the Kormylos

were enjoying a father-son outing on Lake Mead. The complaint further alleges that

the father-son outing was sponsored by the San Diego chapters of the Boy Scouts and

the Mormon Church. Defendants seek leave to file a third-party complaint in order to

implead the Proposed Third-Party Defendants for the purpose of assigning liability

with respect to the incident on Lake Mead. In opposition to Defendants’ request,

Plaintiffs argue Defendants have unreasonably delayed bringing the Proposed ThirdParty Defendants into this action. Plaintiffs contend Defendants should have been

aware of the Boy Scouts’ potential liability regarding the incident fromthe initial filing

of Plaintiffs’ complaint and have unreasonably delayed bringing them into this action.

Because of this delay, Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ motion must be denied because it

does not satisfy Rule 14(a). 

- 2 - 13-cv-0511 JM (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-00511-JM-WVG Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 2 of 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

First, Plaintiffs contend prejudice to the original plaintiff is established because

timely resolution of Nicholas Kormylo’s claim is essential to his and his family’s

well-being following his loss of income and ongoing health issues. Plaintiffs suggest

that Defendants’ attempt to file a third party complaint at this juncture “appears

intended to intentionally delay and complicate the matter as it currently exists.” As an

initial matter, the court notes Plaintiffs have not proffered any evidence suggesting

Defendants have an improper motive for filing their motion. Additionally, while

Plaintiffs understandably desire the most expedient resolution of their claims possible,

it is also important for Defendants to have a reasonable opportunity to present the best

defense available. At this stage in the litigation, any prejudice to Plaintiffs is not so

great as to weigh heavily against granting Defendants the opportunity to implead the

Proposed Third-Party Defendants. 

Second, Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ third party complaint will complicate the

issues at trial. Plaintiffs’ initial complaint alleges Defendants violated Inland

Navigational Rules to establish negligence per se. For this reason, Plaintiffs argue it

is irrelevant whether Boy Scout guidelines were followed in setting up the outing on

Lake Mead. However, Defendants point out that Plaintiffs’ complaint also alleges the

scout trip was approved and authorized by the BSA; a “safe swim zone” was created,

and Defendants were negligent in entering and not recognizing the “safe swim zone.” 

The proposed third-party complaint is based on the same set of operative facts, alleging

that the Proposed Third-Party Defendants were negligent in setting up the “safe swim

zone,” failed to follow BSA safety procedures, including Safe Swim Defense and

Safety Afloat, failed to conduct a safety meeting, and that BSA was negligent in

approving and authorizing the Tour and Activities Plan for Team 719’s trip to Lake

Mead. Defendants contend these are the same issues that Defendants would raise in

response to Plaintiffs’ complaint with or without the third-party complaint. Under the

circumstances and given the parties’ respective allegations, the court concludes

Defendants’ third-party complaint will not unreasonably complicate the issues at trial.

- 3 - 13-cv-0511 JM (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-00511-JM-WVG Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 3 of 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

Most ofthe facts and legal issues contained in the proposed third-party complaintrelate

directly to Plaintiffs’ original claims. It does not appear likely that any additional

issues raised by the third-party complaint would be so tangential as to unnecessarily

complicate issues at trial. 

Third, Plaintiffs contend the proposed third-party complaint will complicate all

aspects of the discovery process and increase the time needed to conduct discovery; the

newly introduced parties will need time to answer, file motions, and conduct discovery,

further delaying and complicating the current proceedings; and the third-party

complaint will require the court to consider numerous legal and factual complications

in addition to calculating the percentages of liability. In response, Defendants again

point out that the issues of fact and law remain essentially the same. The only

additional issues pertain to contribution and indemnity. The court finds Defendants’

argument persuasive. Here again, there may be a slight delay of trial as the Proposed

Third-Parties will likely require some additional time while entering into thislitigation. 

However, the court does not anticipate a significant delay given the early stage of the

litigation and the substantial overlap in the factual and legal issues underlying both

Plaintiffs’ complaint and the proposed third party complaint. From the perspective of

judicial economy and litigation expense for the parties, a reasonable delay of trial in

this case is ultimately more efficient than relegating such similar factual and legal

issues to a separate lawsuit. 

Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion is not timely as it has been 16

months since the initial complaint was filed and limited discovery has now been

conducted. Significantly, the case management conference order regulating discovery

and other pretrial proceedings providesthat “anymotion to join other parties, to amend

the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed on or before June 30, 2014.” 

(Dkt. No. 42 at 2 (emphasisin original)). Furthermore, Plaintiffs actually agreed to this

date as reflected in the parties’ proposed joint scheduling plan submitted to the court. 

(Dkt. No. 40 at 2). Therefore, the court rejects Plaintiffs’ characterization of

- 4 - 13-cv-0511 JM (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-00511-JM-WVG Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 4 of 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

Defendants’ motion as untimely. Defendants filed their motion for leave to file a third

party complaint on June 30, 2014, in accordance with the case management order

adopting the parties’ proposed joint scheduling plan. More than any other, this factor

weighs in favor of granting Defendants’ request to file a third-party complaint.

CONCLUSION

The court grants Defendants’ motion for leave to file a third party complaint

without prejudice to further challenge of the complaint should circumstances warrant.

Defendants shall file the third party complaint within 10 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2014

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

- 5 - 13-cv-0511 JM (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-00511-JM-WVG Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 5 of 5