Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00822/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00822-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GERARDO OBLIGACION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRANER USA, INC., LOOPCO 

INDUSTRIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 

100, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-00822-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

Braner USA, Inc. seeks leave to file a third-party complaint under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 14(a). Mr. Obligacion does not oppose the motion, and the court took the matter 

under submission without argument. Braner’s motion is granted. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On April 2, 2014, Gerardo Obligacion filed a complaint against Braner, asserting 

this court’s diversity jurisdiction. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Obligacion alleges he was seriously 

injured when his hand and arm were caught and pulled into the in-running rolls of a slitter 

machine designed and manufactured by Braner. Id. ¶ 8. He alleges claims in strict liability and 

negligence, and he seeks damages. Id. at 4-10. Braner answered the complaint on June 2, 2014. 

ECF No. 9. On November 11, 2014, Braner filed a motion seeking leave to implead the Feralloy 

Case 2:14-cv-00822-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Corporation, which it says was Obligacion’s employer at the time he was injured. Mot. Third 

Pty. Compl. 1-2, ECF No. 16; see also Proposed Third-Pty. Compl., Mot. Third Pty. Compl. 18-

24, ECF No. 16. Braner alleges Feralloy was negligent and did not maintain the slitter machine 

safely or take adequate safety precautions to prevent injuries to its employees. Id. at 2. 

Obligacion filed a statement of non-opposition on December 5, 2014. ECF No. 21. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1) allows a defendant to serve a summons 

and complaint on a non-party who may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s 

claims. The rule is meant to promote efficiency and should be construed liberally. See Sw. 

Adm’rs., Inc. v. Rozay’s Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986). The third-party claim must 

be derivative of the plaintiff’s claim, not merely related. United States v. One 1977 Mercedes 

Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 452 (9th Cir. 1983). In other words, impleader is appropriate when the 

“defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted against him 

by the original plaintiff.” Stewart v. Am. Int’l Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If the defendant seeks to file a complaint under 

this rule, but more than fourteen days have passed after it filed its answer, it may do so only with 

the court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). The decision is then left to the district court’s 

discretion. Sw. Adm’rs., 791 F.2d at 777. When making this decision, district courts have 

considered prejudice to the other parties, whether impleader will unduly complicate the action, 

and whether the third-party claim lacks merit. See Charles A. Wright et al., 6 Fed. Prac. & Proc. 

Civ. § 1443 & nn.9-12 (3d ed.). 

Here, Mr. Obligacion alleges he was injured by a slitter machine manufactured by 

Braner, and Braner alleges Mr. Obligacion’s employer is liable because it did not properly 

prevent injuries to its employees. Braner has attached to its motion a Citation and Notification of 

Penalty from the State of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Mot. Ex. A, 

ECF No. 16. The complaint appears to refer to the same citation and notification. See Compl. 

¶ 10. The citation and notification reports several citations against Feralloy that may suggest its 

liability. See Mot. Ex. A, at 5-7, ECF No. 16. Inclusion of Feralloy in this litigation will avoid 

Case 2:14-cv-00822-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

duplicate lawsuits; prejudice to any party appears unlikely; no evidence suggests an impleader 

would unnecessarily prolong or complicate the matter; and the proposed complaint is not clearly 

meritless. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Braner’s request for leave to file a third-party complaint against Feralloy is 

GRANTED. The proposed third-party complaint filed concurrently with its motion is deemed 

FILED. Braner shall serve a copy of this motion and the proposed third-party complaint on 

Feralloy in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 6, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00822-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 3