Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02385/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02385-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RONALD GILLETTE, an individual, TRI-STAR

MOTIONS, LLC, a limited liability company,

GOLDEN WEST MOTORS, a general partnership,

PETER LIEBOWITZ, an individual, and LOURDY

HERRERA, an individual,

Defendants. ______________________________________

STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.

Cross-Claimant,

v.

TRI-STAR MOTIONS, LLC,

Cross-Defendant. /

No. C 05-02385 WHA

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE 

TO FILE THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINT AND 

VACATING HEARING

Defendant Tri-Star Motions, LLC seeks leave to file a third-party complaint against

George Piper Insurance Services, Inc. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a). 

Plaintiffs have stipulated to Tri-Star’s request.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) provides:

At any time after commencement of the action a defending party,

as a third-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to

Case 3:05-cv-02385-WHA Document 76 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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 third-party plaintiff.

If the cross-complaint is to be filed more than ten days after an answer is filed in the case, Rule

14(a) requires leave of court. Even where the cross-complaint lacks an independent basis for

subject-matter jurisdiction, a court will be able to adjudicate the claim under its ancillary

jurisdiction. “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 party who may be

derivatively liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s original claim.” Kim v.

Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1434 (9th Cir. 1989).

George Piper may be responsible to Tri-Star for all or part of any liability for insurance

coverage in the underlying action. This order thus finds that Tri-Star is entitled to file a crosscomplaint under Rule 14(a). Tri-Star’s motion is, therefore, GRANTED. Tri-Star is instructed to

file and issue summons on their cross-complaint by no later than JUNE 9, 2006. To allow the

parties additional discovery relevant to this third-party complaint, the deadlines for non-expert

discovery and designation of expert testimony and disclosure are hereby extended to JULY 31,

2006. All other deadlines and the trial date set forth in the case management order remain in

place. Finding no further argument necessary, the hearing on this motion is hereby VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02385-WHA Document 76 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 2