Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06057/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06057-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

R. GIL MCDOUGALD,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

O.A.R.S. COMPANIES, INC., a

corporation, OARS CANYONLANDS,

INC., a corporation, GEORGE

WENDT, an individual, M/V METAL

CRAFT JET BOAT bearing VIN

1FWE02522XAO23408, her engines,

tackle, apparel, furniture, and

appurtenances, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

 Defendants.

1:04-CV-6057 OWW DLB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS AND

THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS OARS

PARTIES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

AGAINST METAL CRAFT (DOC.

98) AND

DENYING METAL CRAFT’S MOTION

TO CHANGE VENUE AS MOOT

(DOC. 63) 

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants OARS Canyonlands, Inc., George Wendt, and

O.A.R.S. Companies, Inc. move for leave to file a third party

complaint against Metal Craft, Inc. (MC). (Doc. 98-1, filed June

14, 2006.) MC opposes the motion, as does Plaintiff. (Docs. 113

and 123.) 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims that he injured his lower back while

working in the course of his employment for Defendant Canyonlands

as the operator of a jet boat on the Colorado River in Utah. 

Plaintiff’s injuries were allegedly sustained while he attempted

to load the jet boat onto a boat trailer using equipment

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 133 Filed 09/05/06 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

furnished by the OARS Parties, which he alleges was faulty and

undersized. Plaintiff alleges negligence under the Jones Act, 46

U.S.C. § 688, breach of the warranty of seaworthiness under

general maritime law, and willful and arbitrary failure to pay

maintenance and cure. (Doc. 78, Opp., at 1-2.) The OARS Parties

assert that MC designed and built the boat trailer and that MC is

the actively negligent party responsible for Plaintiff’s alleged

injuries. (Doc. 63, Mot. to Change Venue at 1.)

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The complaint was filed on August 5, 2004. (Doc. 1.) It

named O.A.R.S., Inc. (“O.A.R.S.”), OARS Canyonlands, Inc.

(“Canyonlands”), North American River Expeditions, Inc. (“NARE”),

and the jet boat (in rem) as Defendants. (Id.) Defendant

O.A.R.S. and Canyonlands filed answers on October 1, 2004. 

(Docs. 4 & 5.) The first amended complaint was filed with leave

of court on January 24, 2005. (Doc. 18.) It dropped NARE and

added Wendt as a Defendant. (Id.) O.A.R.S., Canyonlands, and

Wendt filed answers on March 3, 2005. (Docs. 19-21.) The second

amended complaint (“SAC”) was filed with leave of court on July

26, 2005. (Doc. 40.) It dropped O.A.R.S. and added O.A.R.S.

Companies (“Companies”) as Defendant. (Id.) Answers to the SAC

were filed by Defendants Canyonlands, Companies, and Wendt

(collectively, “the OARS Parties”) on September 9, 2005. (Docs.

45-47.) 

Together with their answers, the OARS Parties filed thirdparty complaints against MC. (Id.) On November 18, 2005, MC

filed an answer to the OARS Parties’ third-party complaint, and

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 133 Filed 09/05/06 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

3

moved to strike the OARS Parties’ third-party complaints. 

(Docs. 54-56.) 

A memorandum decision and order dated April 17, 2006, along

with a subsequent order clarifying that decision, struck the OARS

Parties’ third-party complaints against MC. (Doc. 91 and Doc.

112, (“Clarification Order”), filed July 26, 2006.) The district

court held that Canyonlands and Wendt needed leave of court

before filing their third party complaint against MC. (Doc. 91

at 6.) Companies, however, did not require leave of court prior

to the filing of their third party complaint. Nevertheless,

Companies’ complaint was still subject to a motion to strike

under the eighth sentence of Rule 14(a), which provides that “any

party may move to strike the third-party claim, or for its

severance or separate trial.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro Rule 14(a); see 6

Wright, Miller & Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc.: Civil 2d. § 1454; 3

Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 14.20[2] (3d ed. 2000) (“the court may

refuse to allow or to retain the third-party claim, even though

the third party has been imple[d] properly without leave of

court”). (Doc. 112, Clarification Order, at 5-6.)

The April 14, 2006 memorandum decision stated:

The late impleader of MC will unnecessarily delay the

adjudication of the case, given the likely necessity of

expert witness testimony regarding the design and

manufacture of the trailer, the likely necessity of

additional discovery regarding MC’s affirmative

defenses, and the likelihood of various extra pre-trial

and dispositive motions that will all unjustifiably

tend to increase the time necessary to decide the

controversy. Third-Party Plaintiffs’ delay in filing

the third-party complaints is unexplained.

 

(Doc. 91 at 7.) The Clarification Order further noted that: 

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 133 Filed 09/05/06 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

Companies is Canyonlands’ parent company. (See Doc.

36, Declaration of Kurt Micklow in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot.

for Leave to File SAC [hereinafter, “Micklow Decl.”],

¶ 3. Although Companies was first made a Defendant by

the SAC in July 2005, Doc. 40, SAC, it was given notice

by the August 5, 2004, complaint that Plaintiff sought

to sue the parent company of Plaintiff’s employer,

Canyonlands, an original (and current) Defendant, and

that but for an error Plaintiff would have sued

Companies:

Plaintiff was originally informed and believed

that the “parent” company of [Canyonlands] was a

related company named [O.A.R.S.]. Based on that

information and belief, Plaintiff named and sued

[O.A.R.S.] as a [D]efendant in the original and

first amended complaints.

 

Doc. 36, Micklow Decl., ¶ 3. The original complaint

stated product-liability claims. Doc. 91, Order, 6. 

Despite this notice to both Canyonlands and its

corporate parent Companies, these Defendants did not

take timely action to ensure MC’s presence in this suit

until after the SAC was filed. Companies could have

sought to intervene to timely file a third-party

complaint against MC, since O.A.R.S. had not done so. 

The parties’ delay is unexplained. 

The April 17, 2006, Order was based on the express

purpose of avoiding the complication and delay

inclusion of the third-party complaint against MC would

cause. Allowing Companies to implead MC unjustifiably

defeats the purpose and spirit of the order striking

the third-party complaint. 

An implied indemnity declaratory relief claim need not

be filed before underlying liability is established on

Plaintiff’s claims. The implied indemnity claim is

more centered in Utah, and as in Asahi Metal Industry

Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), the

Eastern District of California has negligible interest

in the dispute between the manufacturer and purchaser

for design defect. See Cermetek, Inc. v. Butler Avpak,

Inc., 573 F.2d 1370, 1382 (9 Cir. 1978) (unnecessary th

party’s residence not taken into account in change of

venue determination). 

(Doc. 112 at 6-7.)

//

//

//

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 133 Filed 09/05/06 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

IV. DISCUSSION

The April 17, 2006 memorandum decision along with the

Clarification Order granted MC’s motions to strike the thirdparty complaints of all of the OARS Parties. (Doc. 91, at 2, 8;

Doc. 112.) The OARS Parties now seek leave of court to file the

same third-party complaint against MC. 

Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

in relevant part:

At any time after 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.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 14(a).

A decision whether to permit impleader is left to the

discretion of the district court. See United States v. One 1977

Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 452 (9th Cir. 1983); Ahern v.

Gaussoin, 104 F.R.D. 37, 39-40 (D.C. Or. 1984); Irwin v. Mascott,

94 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2000). “The court should also

consider the possibility of delay and prejudice to other parties,

as well as whether the third-party claim lacks merit.” Ahern,

104 F.R.D. at 40. 

Here, the district court has already ruled that impleader of

MC would unnecessarily delay and complicate the proceedings:

//

//

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 133 Filed 09/05/06 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

The April 17, 2006, Order was based on the express

purpose of avoiding the complication and delay

inclusion of the third-party complaint against MC would

cause. Allowing Companies to implead MC unjustifiably

defeats the purpose and spirit of the order striking

the third-party complaint. 

An implied indemnity declaratory relief claim need not

be filed before underlying liability is established on

Plaintiff’s claims. The implied indemnity claim is

more centered in Utah, and as in Asahi Metal Industry

Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), the

Eastern District of California has negligible interest

in the dispute between the manufacturer and purchaser

for design defect. See Cermetek, Inc. v. Butler Avpak,

Inc., 573 F.2d 1370, 1382 (9 Cir. 1978) (unnecessary th

party’s residence not taken into account in change of

venue determination). 

(Doc. 112 at 7.)

It appears that the OARS Parties misunderstand the nature of

the delay that is of concern to the district court. In their

Reply brief, the OARS Parties argue forcefully that they promptly

sought to implead MC following the discovery of certain details

regarding MC’s potential liability during the depositions of

Plaintiffs and two former employee witnesses conducted in June

2005. (Doc. 124 at 2-3.) Plaintiffs also contend that the

filing of the proposed third party complaint would “promote

judicial economy, avoid duplicate discovery and the necessity of

separate trials, [] be more convenient for witnesses, [] avoid

conflicting rulings or verdicts, and would not result in

prejudice to any party.” (Id. at 4.) But, it is the prospect of

further delay and additional complexity that is of concern now,

particularly given that the OARS Parties may obtain

indemnification from MC if judgment is rendered in favor of

Plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, it does not serve the

interests of judicial economy to further delay proceedings in

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 133 Filed 09/05/06 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

this case for the sole purpose of adding a claim for

indemnification in a case where subject matter jurisdiction is

challenged and no need for indemnification may arise if Plaintiff

does not prevail on the pending motion to dismiss. 

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the OARS Parties’ motion for

leave to file a third-party complaint is DENIED.

 In addition, confirming the prior oral ruling of the

district court in open court on February 5, 2006, MC’s motion to

transfer venue (Doc. 63) is DENIED AS MOOT, as MC is no longer a

party in this case. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: September 5, 2006

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

____________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:04-cv-06057-OWW -DLB Document 133 Filed 09/05/06 Page 7 of 7