Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08108/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08108-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS

INDEMNITY COMPANY, a California

corporation,

Plaintiff, 

v.

CHARLES R. BIGELOW and JANET

SUZANNE MILLER a.k.a. JANET M.

CARTIER a.k.a JANET BIGELOW,

husband and wife, CHARLES R.

BIGELOW, as Trustee of the Ariana

Trust, JANET SUZANNE MILLER, as

Trustee of the Arian Trust, MICHAEL L.

CAMPBELL and SHAWN M.

CAMPBELL, husband and wife, DOES 1

THROUGH X,

Defendants.

CHARLES R. BIGELOW and JANET

SUZANNE MILLER, husband and wife,

CHARLES R. BIGELOW, as Trustee of

the Ariana Trust, JANET SUZANNE

MILLER, as Trustee of the Ariana Trust,

MICHAEL L. CAMPBELL and SHAWN

M. CAMPBELL, husband and wife, 

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, a municipal

corporation,

Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-08108-PCT-MHM

ORDER

Case 3:09-cv-08108-HRH Document 63 Filed 07/30/10 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 -

Currently pending before the Court is Third-Party Defendant City of Flagstaff’s (“the

City”) motion to dismiss amended third-party complaint. (Doc. 46). After reviewing the

pleadings, and determining oral argument unnecessary, the Court issues the following Order.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2009, American Contractors Indemnity Company (“ACIC”) commenced

this action against Charles R. Bigelow and Janet Suzanne Miller a.k.a. Janet M. Cartier a.k.a.

Janet Bigelow, Charles R. Bigelow, as Trustee of the Ariana Trust, Janet Suzanne Miller, as

Trustee of the Ariana Trust, and Michael L. Campbell and Shawn M. Campbell. (Doc. 1).

Charles Bigelow, Michael Campbell, and Shawn Campbell are members of Premiere

Acquisitions, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company (“Premiere”). (Doc. 36).

Michael Campbell and Shawn Campbell are also members of Luxury Lofts, L.L.C., an

Arizona limited liability company (“Luxury Lofts”). (Doc. 36). Charles Bigelow and Janet

Suzanne Miller are Trustees of the Ariana Trust. Premiere and Luxury Lofts owned

approximately ninety-one acres of undeveloped land located in Flagstaff. (Doc. 36). In

September 2004, the City entered in a Development Agreement with Premiere and Luxury

Lofts to develop the property into a master planned community called Presidio in the Pines.

(Doc. 36). Premiere was required to provide the City with assurances for construction of

certain infrastructure. (Id.) On October 11, 2006, the Bigelows, the Campbells, and Ariana

Trust individually and collectively executed and delivered to ACIC a General Indemnity

Agreement (“GIA”) promising, among other things, to indemnify ACIC for all loss, costs,

expenses, and attorneys’ fees in connection with any bonds for which ACIC issued at their

request on behalf of Premiere as Principal. (Doc. 1). On October 18, 2006, ACIC issued

four performance bonds in the penal sum of $6,599,337. (Doc. 1). Each bond named

Premiere as Principal, ACIC as Surety, and the City as Obligee. (Doc. 1). In October 2005,

construction of the Presidio in the Pines Project began. (Doc. 36). The City authorized four

partial releases relating to the project between November 30, 2005 and July 31, 2006. (Doc.

36). On June 29, 2007, the City acknowledged that other improvements at Presidio in the

Pines “have been partially completed to the satisfaction of the City of Flagstaff,” and

Case 3:09-cv-08108-HRH Document 63 Filed 07/30/10 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

1 Quia timet is a legal doctrine that allows a person to seek equitable relief from future

probable harm to a specific right or interest. 

- 3 -

authorized a partial release of funds in the amount of $2,923,639.50. (Doc. 36) (emphasis

added). On August 27, 2007, however, the City determined that “[I]mprovements have been

partially completed to the satisfaction of the City of Flagstaff, and the City hereby gives

notice that it is not authorizing a partial release of funds posted for assurance in the amount

of $2,923,639.50 . . . It is not the City’s policy per City Ordinance 1925 to release funds on

performance bonds. The current balance held in American Contractors Indemnity Company

shall remain the same.” (Doc. 36) (emphasis added). 

On or about June 2, 2008, Premiere filed a voluntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition

in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona. (Doc. 1). ACIC was

drawn into the Bankruptcy by Premiere and was required to enter into a Bankruptcyapproved agreement by which ACIC was obligated to pay for infrastructure improvements

for the Project. (Doc. 1). In January 2009, ACIC made written demands upon the ThirdParty Plaintiffs, pursuant to their indemnity agreement, to indemnify ACIC, by reason of

ACIC having issued the bonds at their insistence on behalf of Premiere for the Project. (Doc.

25). Third-Party Plaintiffs allegedly have not indemnified ACIC. (Doc. 1). Accordingly,

ACIC filed this action on June 23, 2009, against Third-Party Plaintiffs under counts of (1)

reimbursement; (2) exoneration; (3) breach of the general indemnity agreement; (4) specific

performance and quia timet.

1

 (Doc. 1).

On March 2, 2010, Third-Party Plaintiffs filed an Amended Third-Party Complaint

against the City (“Amended Complaint”). (Doc. 36). In their Amended Complaint, ThirdParty Plaintiffs included the counts against the City of (1) failure to comply with city

ordinance; (2) equitable estoppel; and (3) indemnity. (Doc. 36). Third-Party Plaintiffs seek

damages or indemnity from the City for any liability Third-Party Plaintiffs may have to

ACIC. (Doc. 36). On March 19, 2010, the City filed a motion to dismiss the Amended

Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), 14 and 17. (Doc.

Case 3:09-cv-08108-HRH Document 63 Filed 07/30/10 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 -

46). The City simultaneously filed a reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss

third-party complaint and supplemental amended third-party complaint. (Doc. 45). 

II. DISCUSSION

In the instant action, Third-Party Plaintiffs seek to implead the City under Rule 14.

Third-Party Plaintiffs contend that, by refusing to release the bonds in August 2007 and

unreasonably exposing Third-Party Plaintiffs to liability to ACIC, the City acted wrongfully,

giving rise to a claim for indemnity against the City. (Doc. 36). Third-Party Plaintiffs note

that in their Amended Complaint that they are only seeking indemnity-type damages against

the City. (Doc. 37, p. 11). The City on the other hand contends that Third-Party Plaintiffs’

Amended Complaint fails under Rule 14 because no indemnity obligation exists between

Third-Party Plaintiffs and the City. The City alleges that there is no indemnity contract of

any kind between Third-Party Plaintiff and the City and that the Amended Complaint fails

to state a claim for common law indemnity. (Doc. 45).

 Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure allows a defending party, as thirdparty plaintiff, to bring in as a third-party defendant “a nonparty who is or who may be liable

to it for all or part of the claim against it.” Thus, a third-party claim may be asserted only

where a third-party defendant's liability to the third-party plaintiff is dependent on the

outcome of the main claim and is secondary or derivative thereto. Stewart v. American

International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 199 (9th Cir. 1988). A third-party claim cannot

simply be an independent or related claim but must be based upon plaintiff's claim against

defendant. Id. at 200. As the crucial characteristic of a Rule 14(a) claim is that the thirdparty plaintiff is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted by

the original plaintiff; the mere fact that the alleged third-party claim arises from the same

transaction or set of facts as the original claim is not enough. Id. at 200 (citing 6 Fed. Prac.

& Proc. § 1446 at 257 (1971 ed.). See also, 3 J. Moore, Federal Practice, paragraphs 14.04-

14.15). “A proper third-party claim is typically one that involves one joint tortfeasor

impleading another, an indemnitee impleading an indemnitor, or a secondarily liable party

impleading one who is primarily liable.” Gandy v. Shaklan-Brown, 2008 WL 4446708, at

Case 3:09-cv-08108-HRH Document 63 Filed 07/30/10 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 -

*2 (D. Ariz. 2008). Several United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, including the Ninth

Circuit have held that Rule 14(a) permits a defendant to pursue contribution and indemnity

claims even though the defendant's claim is purely inchoate--i.e., has not yet accrued under

the governing substantive law--so long as the third-party defendant may become liable for

all or part of the plaintiff's judgment. Andrulonis v. United States, 26 F.3d 1224, 1233 (2d

Cir. 1994); Green v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 775 F.2d 964, 971 n.7 (8th Cir. 1985); Williams

v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 627 F.2d 158, 160 (8th Cir. 1980); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co

v. U.S. Lines Co., 258 F.2d 374, 376 (2d Cir. 1958); Mid-States Ins. Co. v. American Fid.

& Cas. Co., 234 F.2d 721, 731-32 (9th Cir. 1956); Glens Falls Indem. Co. v. Atlantic Bldg.

Corp., 199 F.2d 60, 63 (4th Cir. 1952).

 Arizona recognizes both contractual and common law indemnity claims. Contractual

indemnity is "where an express provision in a contract defines the obligation[.]" General

Motors Corp. v. Maritz, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3840, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 6, 2009). 

For a common law indemnity action, the indemnity plaintiff must show that (1) it has

discharged a legal obligation owed to a third party; (2) the indemnity defendant was also

liable to the third party; and (3) as between itself and the defendant, the obligation should

have been discharged by the defendant. MT Builders, LLC v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., 219 Ariz.

297, 197 P.3d 758 (App. 2008). 

Here, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint fails to satisfy the pleading

requirements of Rule 14(a). Third-Party Plaintiffs have failed to show the requisite

derivative or secondary liability on the part of the City as required under Rule 14(a). ThirdParty Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that a derivative or secondary relationship exists

between Third-Party Plaintiffs and the City under which the City would legally assume

responsibility for the actions of Third-Party Plaintiffs. In addition, Third-Party Plaintiffs’

claim against the City is related to, but crucially not derivative of, ACIC’s original claim.

Third-Party Plaintiffs claim for indemnity against the City is associated with an independent

claim against the City for its failure to partially release the performance bonds in August

2007. On the other hand, the original complaint by ACIC against Third-Party Plaintiffs seeks

Case 3:09-cv-08108-HRH Document 63 Filed 07/30/10 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 -

indemnity from Third-Party Plaintiffs for failure to indemnify ACIC under a general

indemnity agreement signed by Third-Party Plaintiffs and ACIC in October 2006. As such,

Third-Party Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is disparate and independent from ACIC’s

original complaint. 

Third-Party Plaintiffs also fail to allege a viable theory under which the City could

be liable to indemnify Third-Party Plaintiffs for Third-Party Plaintiff’s indemnity obligation

to ACIC. No indemnity contract exists between Third-Party Plaintiffs and the City, thus

common law indemnity principles apply. Yet, Third-Party Plaintiffs fail to establish under

prong two of common law indemnity that the City is also liable to the third party, ACIC. The

City is not a party to the general indemnity agreement between ACIC and Third-Party

Plaintiffs and therefore cannot be liable to ACIC nor Third Party Plaintiffs under that

agreement. Under the third prong of common law indemnity, Third-Party Plaintiffs fail to

establish that as between itself and the City, the legal obligation to indemnify ACIC should

have been discharged by the City, and not by Third-Party Plaintiffs. Third-Party Plaintiffs

undertook the legal obligation to indemnify ACIC through a General Indemnity Agreement

which ACIC signed in October 2006. Third-Party Plaintiffs do not demonstrate another

means by which the legal obligation to indemnify ACIC should be discharged by the City

rather than Third-Party Plaintiffs. Thus, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for

indemnity. As such, the Court finds that Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails

to meet Rule 14's pleading requirements and must be dismissed. As the Court finds the

Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint must be dismissed under Rule 14, the Court does

not address the City’s motion to dismiss arguments under Rules 7 and 12(b)(6).

/ / / 

Case 3:09-cv-08108-HRH Document 63 Filed 07/30/10 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the City’s motion to dismiss the amended

third-party complaint. (Doc. 46). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing City of Flagstaff from this action.

DATED this 28th day of July, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08108-HRH Document 63 Filed 07/30/10 Page 7 of 7