Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00300/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00300-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rosalinda Cervantes, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Ford Motor Company, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00300-TUC-RCC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) written by 

Magistrate Judge Bernardo Velasco. Doc. 32. Magistrate Judge Velasco recommends that 

the Court grant Ford Motor Company’s Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claim of American 

Family Mutual Insurance Company and deny Defendants Texas Instrument Incorporated 

and Sensata Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claim of American Family 

Mutual Insurance Company with leave to renew the argument at summary judgment. 

Plaintiffs and American Family have filed objections to the R&R. Docs. 32 and 45. Ford 

Motor Company filed a Combined Response to Plaintiffs’ and American Family’s 

objections. Doc. 48. For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall overrule the objections 

and accept the R&R.

I. Background

The factual background in this case is thoroughly detailed in Magistrate Judge 

Velasco’s R&R. This Court fully incorporates by reference the Background and 

Discussion sections of the R&R into this Order. The dispute stems from a fire allegedly 

Case 4:15-cv-00300-RCC-BPV Document 75 Filed 03/09/16 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

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

caused by a defect in Plaintiff Rosalinda Cervantes’s 1999 Ford F-150 at the home of 

Plaintiffs Carlos and Aurora Sanchez.

II. Standard of Review

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R of a Magistrate Judge, are 

set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). When the parties object to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make 

a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). However, in the absence of

a timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 

face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory 

Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003).

III. Discussion

American Family objects to Magistrate Judge Velasco’s holding that American 

Family’s cross-claim does not relate back to Plaintiffs’ complaint and is therefore barred 

by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. At issue here is whether American 

Family’s cross-claim is an affirmative or defensive claim. “[D]efensive claims generally 

relate back to the filing of the original complaint, while affirmative claims must satisfy 

the applicable statute of limitations.” 40235 Washington St. Corp. v. Lusardi, CIV. 90-

1472-R, 1999 WL 33633157, at *5 (S.D. Cal. 1999). American Family argues that its 

cross-claim is a defensive claim because Plaintiffs are seeking damages for “[a]ll losses 

resulting from the damage to property, both real and personal.” Doc. 45 at 4-5. This

argument is without merit. American Family’s cross-claim is not directed at reducing any 

amount of damages at issue if Plaintiffs prevail on the claims alleged in their Complaint. 

Rather, American Family’s affirmative claims deal solely with the destruction of the 

subject vehicle and related expenses. Accordingly, the Court overrules American 

Case 4:15-cv-00300-RCC-BPV Document 75 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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

Family’s objections.

Plaintiffs also filed objections to the R&R. Specifically, Plaintiffs “object to any 

factual finding or conclusion . . . that Plaintiffs, specifically Rosalinda Cervantes, are not 

seeking damages for the loss of the subject vehicle or expenses and deductibles related to 

the loss of the subject vehicle.” Doc. 42 at 3. Similar to American Family, Plaintiffs 

argue that the finding is in error because the Complaint is seeking damages for “[a]ll 

losses resulting from the damage to property, both real and personal.” Doc. 1-1 at 26. 

This objection is also without merit. Plaintiffs have not directed the Court’s attention to 

any case law supporting this proposition. Further, the parties agree that American Family 

has already “paid Rosalinda Cervantes for the property damage to the Subject Vehicle 

due to the fire.” Doc. 1-1 at 4. Thus, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections.

Lastly, no party objects to Magistrate Judge Velasco’s recommendation denying 

Sensata’s Motion to Dismiss American Family’s Cross-claim. After review, the Court 

finds that the R&R contains no clear error. Thus, the Court adopts this recommendation.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Case 4:15-cv-00300-RCC-BPV Document 75 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge 

Velasco’s Report and Recommendation; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ford Motor Company’s Motion to Dismiss 

Cross-Claim of American Family Mutual Insurance Company is GRANTED (Doc. 16);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Texas Instruments Incorporated 

and Sensata Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claim of American Family 

Mutual Insurance Company is DENIED with leave to renew the argument at summary 

judgment after sufficient time for discovery has occurred.

Dated this 8th day of March, 2016.

Case 4:15-cv-00300-RCC-BPV Document 75 Filed 03/09/16 Page 4 of 4