Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00123/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00123-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN N. HALL, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL

SERVICES, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00123-AWI-SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINT (DOC. 20)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT NORTH

AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

TO FILE THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT NO

LATER THAN TEN DAYS AFTER THE DATE

OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER AND TO

PROCEED TO SERVE THE COMPLAINT

FORTHWITH

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c) and 72-303.

Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendant North

American Industrial Services, Inc., for leave to file a thirdparty complaint.

I. Background

On February 3, 2006, Plaintiffs Brian N. Hall and Jean M.

Hall, husband and wife, filed an unverified complaint naming

North American Industrial Services, Inc., and North American

Services Group as well as “Doe” defendants, alleging jurisdiction

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 9
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

based on diversity of citizenship and seeking damages for severe

burns suffered by Plaintiff Brian N. Hall on or about September

20, 2005, on the premises of the AES-Mendota bio-mass power

production plant located in Mendota, California, as a result of

Defendants’ being engaged in explosive de-slagging involving the

use and detonation of explosives and having caused a

conflagration which engulged Plaintiff’s person. Plaintiff Jean

M. Hall sues for loss of consortium and other harm derived from

her husband’s injuries. The claims stated include 1) strict

liability–ultra-hazardous activity; 2) negligence in the use of

explosives and control of the premises; and 3) loss of

consortium.

On March 27, 2006, Defendant North American Industrial

Services, Inc. (NAIS) (sued as North American Industrial

Services, Inc., and North American Services Group) filed an

unverified answer, admitting the allegations of jurisdiction,

that it was a New York corporation, and that North American

Services Group is a “dba” under which Defendant NAIS operates.

Defendant alleged that it had been retained by Mendota Bio-Mass

Power, Limited to do the explosive de-slagging, but it denied the

other allegations of the complaint. Defendant asserted various

affirmative defenses, including the failure to state a claim;

comparative fault; that Plaintiff Brian N. Hall was employed by

Mendota Bio-Mass Power, Limited (MBMP), was acting within the

course and scope of employment at the time of the injury, had

received Worker’s Compensation benefits from the carrier for

MBMP, had been negligent himself and thus the amount paid in

benefits should reduce any recovery against Defedants; that any

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 9
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

NAIS employees on the MBMP premises at the time of the accident

were there at the request of Plaintiff’s employer and were

performing under the direct supervision of and as special

employees of MBMP and co-employees of Plaintiff, and thus any

tort recovery would be barred by the exclusivity provisions of

the California Worker’s Compensation laws.

Designation of expert witnesses is due by January 15, 2007,

but a stipulation has been submitted extending the deadline to

January 31, 2007; expert depositions are due by March 16, 2007;

nonexpert discovery is due by January 31, 2007; expert discovery

is due by March 16, 2007. Non-dispositive motions are due by

March 23, and dispositive motions by April 6, 2007.

On December 11, 2006, Defendant NAIS filed a motion for

leave to file a third-party complaint against AES-MENDOTA, L.P.,

AES CORPORATION, and MENDOTA BIOMASS POWER, Ltd.(MBMP) for claims

for indemnity, declaratory relief, and negligence arising out of

its assumption of risk resulting from the aftermath of the

blasting conducted by Defendant NAIS at the AES-MENDOTA plant,

its express statement that it was fully prepared to handle any

and all fires resulting from the blasting, its failure to

safeguard its persons in the vicinity from the inherent dangers,

and maintaining dangerous premises to dispose of slag which

becomes dislodged during the blasting process. A memorandum of

points and authorities, declaration of Lowell T. Carruth with the

proposed third party complaint attached, and proposed order were

filed with the motion. 

Plaintiffs filed opposition including a memorandum,

declaration of William J. Seiler, and attachments, on December

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 9
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

22, 2006. Proposed third party defendants filed opposition,

including a declaration of the AES Mendota L.P. plant manager,

Don Vawter, on December 22, 2006. Defendant NAIS filed a reply

and supplemental declaration of Carruth on January 4, 2007.

II. Analysis

Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 provides:

At any time after the commencement of the action

a defending party, as a third-party plaintiff, may

cause a summons and complaint to 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.

The third-party plaintiff need not obtain leave to make

the service if the third-party plaintiff files the 

third-party complaint not later than 10 days after 

serving the original answer. Otherwise the third-party

plaintiff must obtain leave on motion upon notice to

all parties to the action.

Impleader is designed to bring in a third party who is or

may be liable to the impleading party for all or part of the

plaintiff's claim against the impleading party. 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 individual who may be secondarily or derivatively liable to

the defendant for all or part of the original claim against the

impleading party. It is a matter within the sound discretion of

the Court. Southwest Administrators, Inc. v. Rozay’s Transfer,

791 F.2d 769, 777 (9 Cir. 1986). In determining whether to th

permit impleader, a court must balance the desire to avoid

circuity of actions and to obtain consistent results against any

prejudice that the plaintiff might suffer from complications of

the case; factors to be considered include 1) prejudice to the

original plaintiff; 2) complication of issues at trial; 3)

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 4 of 9
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

likelihood of trial delay; and 4) timeliness of the motion to

implead. Irwin v. Mascott, 94 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1056 (N.D.Cal.

2000).

Impleader is available to a plaintiff where a counterclaim

has been filed against the plaintiff and where the person or

entity to be joined is or may be liable to the plaintiff on

account of the counterclaim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 (a), (b); see

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 146

F.3d 1071, 1074 (9 Cir. 1998). It is not enough for the original th

and third-party plaintiff’s claims merely to arise from the same

transaction or set or facts as the original claim; for impleader

to be permitted under Rule 14, the third-party plaintiff’s claim

must be dependent upon the outcome of the main claim. Stewart v.

American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 199-200 (9th

Cir. 1988). Thus, the third-party defendant must in some way be

dependent upon the outcome of the main claim and be secondary or

derivative thereto such that the third-party plaintiff is

attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability

asserted against it by the original plaintiff.

Here, Defendant NAIS is trying to transfer some or all of

the liability to proposed third-party defendants MBMP, the owner

of the property in which the accident occurred; to AES MENDOTA,

LP, the alleged manager of the site, entity which hired Defendant

NAIS to engage in the blasting, entity which allegedly expressly

assumed the obligation to prevent and control fires in connection

with the blasting job, and entity whose own alleged negligent

conduct in failing to control the post-blating fires caused

Plaintiff Brian’s injuries; and to AES Corporation, alleged to be

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 5 of 9
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

the parent company and alter ego of AES-MENDOTA LP as well as the

owner of the power plant. (Prop. Complt. pp. 2-3.) NAIS is

alleging that if there was liability on the part of Defendant

NAIS to Plaintiffs Hall, then the proposed third-party defendants

are liable for some of the harm, or must defend or indemnify

NAIS. The claims sought to be interposed against the third-party

defendants are such that the third-party defendants may be liable

to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s

claim within the meaning of Rule 14.

Plaintiffs and proposed third-party defendants argue that at

the time of the accident, Plaintiff was acting in the course and

scope of his employment and was employed by AES Mendota, L.P.,

not by Thermendota, Inc., as is alleged in the proposed thirdparty complaint. California law provides, as Plaintiffs assert,

that if an action is prosecuted by an employee, employer, or both

against a third person and results in a judgment or settlement

against the third person, the employer has no liability to

reimburse or hold the third person harmless on such judgment or

settlement in absence of a written agreement to do so executed

prior to the injury. Cal. Lab. Code § 3864. It also bars a suit

by an employee against its employer for civil damages arising out

of an injury sustained within the course and scope of employment.

Cal. Lab. Code § 3600. 

Here, the evidence submitted by the parties is conflicting

with respect to the identity of the precise entity that employed

Plaintiff Brian Hall at the time of the accident; the evidence

warrants conflicting inferences that he was employed by

Thermendota, Inc., or AES Mendota L.P. Further, although it

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 6 of 9
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

appears that there might be overlapping ownership of the several

entities involved, there is no developed evidence concerning the

manner in which the entities were controlled or operated. It

would be premature to base a denial of Defendant’s motion on

matters that are the subject of a factual dispute. Further,

because of the uncertainty, Defendant’s failure to provide

evidence of a written indemnity agreement between NAIS and any of

the proposed third-party defendants does not warrant denial of

the motion.

Plaintiffs argue that even if it could be proved that

Plaintiff Brian Hall was an employee of either Thermendota, Inc.

or AES Mendota, L.P, and further that AES Corporation owned the

plant separate from the property on which it was located, a

property owner cannot be held liable to the employee of a

contractor injured on the property. Plaintiffs cite Kinsman v.

Unocal Corp., 37 Cal.4th 659 (2005), which includes the general

principle of law urged by Plaintiffs, but which also provides

that a landowner that hires an independent contractor may be

liable to the contractor’s injured employee even if the landowner

does not retain control over the work if the landowner knew or

should have known of a latent or concealed preexisting hazardous

condition on its property, the contractor did not know and could

not have reasonably discovered the condition, and the landowner

failed to warn the contractor about the condition. Id. at 674.

The proposed third-party complaint alleges that AES failed to

take proper measures to prevent fires that resulted from the

blast and maintained a defective and dangerous condition on its

property. The respective stores of knowledge of the parties and

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

the failure to warn by the landowner are not alleged, but the

dangerous condition, coupled with the assertion that fire

prevention and suppression was AES-Mendota’s responsibility,

bring the allegations within the universe of the exception to the

general rule. Further, it should be noted that under California

law, under some circumstances there is a theory of liability of a

property owner to a contractor’s employee based on a theory of

direct negligence, such as the landowner’s or hirer’s negligent

exercise of retained control over safety conditions at the work

site, Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.4th 198, 213

(2002), or negligent provision of unsafe equipment, McKown v.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 219 (2002).

Accordingly, the claims sought to be set forth cannot at

this juncture be determined to be inappropriate or such that no

liability could be predicated upon them.

The Court has reviewed the docket in addition to the

submissions of the parties and concludes that the motion appears

to have been timely filed. Further, granting Defendant’s motion

will not prejudice Plaintiffs; any delay will be very short; the

issues will not be complicated; and a speedy, efficient, and just

resolution of the entire dispute will be facilitated by the

granting of the motion.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that

1) The motion of Defendant North American Industrial

Services, Inc. for leave to file a third-party complaint IS

GRANTED; and

2) Defendant North American Industrial Services, Inc. shall

file the proposed third party complaint as a third party

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

complaint no later than ten days after the date of service of

this order, and shall thereafter proceed to serve the complaint

forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 31 Filed 01/11/07 Page 9 of 9