Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HOMEM and WENDY HOMEM,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

INTEC CORPORATION and JIM

CHAMBLEE,

Defendants 

INTEC USA, LLC,

Third-Party Complainant

 v.

APV NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant

 /

No. C 05-0792 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SEVER

AND/OR CHANGE TRIAL DATE;

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART AS MOOT THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO OPEN

DISCOVERY, CONTINUE EXPERT

DEPOSITIONS, AND ESTABLISH NEW

DEADLINE FOR EXPERT

DISCLOSURES; DENYING AS MOOT

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO OPEN DISCOVERY; SETTING

STATUS CONFERENCE

Before the Court are three motions filed by third-party defendant APV North

America, Inc. (“APV”): (1) APV’s “Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Sever the Third

Party Action, and/or Change the Trial Date and Enlarge Time for the Settlement

Conference, Pretrial Conference, and Discovery Cutoff,” filed November 3, 2006; (2) APV’s

“Motion to Open Discovery,” filed November 4, 2006; and (3) APV’s “Motion to Open

Discovery, Continue Expert Depositions, and Establish A New Deadline for Expert

Disclosures,” filed November 4, 2006. Third-party complainant Intec USA, LLC (“Intec”)

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 281 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 5
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

has filed the following responses to APV’s motions: (1) partial opposition to APV’s “Motion

to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Sever the Third Party Action, and/or Change the Trial

Date and Enlarge Time for the Settlement Conference, Pretrial Conference, and Discovery

Cutoff”; (2) a notice of non-opposition to APV’s “Motion to Open Discovery”; and (3) a

declaration by its counsel, stating Intec opposes in part, on grounds of mootness, APV’s

“Motion to Open Discovery, Continue Expert Depositions, and Establish a New Deadline for

Expert Disclosures.” APV has filed replies to Intec’s responses.

Having reviewed the papers filed in support of and in response to APV’s motions,

the Court rules as follows.

A. Motion To Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Sever the Third Party Action, and/or

Change the Trial Date and Enlarge Time for the Settlement Conference, Pretrial

Conference, and Discovery Cutoff

1. APV has shown it is entitled to dismissal of the First and Third Causes of Action

in the First Amended Third-Party Complaint (“FATC”). In its First Cause of Action, Intec

alleges it is entitled to “equitable indemnity” because plaintiffs’ damages are “the direct and

proximate result of, and/or attributable to the acts or omissions of [APV], whereas [Intec] is

“blameless” and “did not proximately cause or contribute to [plaintiffs’] damages and/or

losses to any degree.” (See FATC ¶ 15.) Similarly, in its Third Cause of Action, Intec

seeks a declaration that APV is the “sole and proximate cause of [plaintiffs’] injuries and

damages.” (See FATC ¶ 24.) In other words, Intec alleges, in both in First and Third

Causes of Action, that Intec is not liable to plaintiffs, and that, instead, APV is liable to

plaintiffs. A third-party claim, however, “presupposes liability on the part of the original

defendant which he is attempting to pass on to the third-party defendant.” See Parr v.

Great Lakes Express Co., 484 F. 2d 767, 769 (7th Cir. 1973) (emphasis added) (affirming

dismissal of third-party complaint, where original defendant sought to join third-party on

theory third-party was sole cause of plaintiff’s claimed injuries); see also Millard v.

Municipal Sewer Authority, 442 F. 2d 539, 541 (3rd Cir. 1971) (holding it is “not possible” to

bring a third-party claim against an entity “claimed to be solely liable to the plaintiff”).

//

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 281 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 5
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

The substantive difference between the Second and Fourth Causes of Action is

unclear. Because APV has not challenged those claims as being duplicative in nature,

however, the Court does not further consider the issue.

3

2. APV has not shown it is entitled to dismissal of the Second and Fourth Causes of

Action. In both claims, Intec alleges that if Intec, as designer of the subject instrumentality,

is found liable to plaintiffs, Intec will be entitled to “equitable apportionment” and

“contribution,” specifically, that Intec will be entitled to recover from APV the portion of any

damages Intec is required to pay to plaintiffs that is attributable to APV’s having improperly

tested, inspected, installed and altered the subject instrumentality. (See FATC ¶¶ 7-8, 20-

21, 27.) Such claims are proper third-party claims. See Employers Insurance of Wausau

v. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, 954 F. 2d 575, 577 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Contribution may be

sought through a third party action pursuant to Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.”); see also Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725, 736 (1978) (holding

“equitable apportionment” applicable where “conduct of one party in combination with the

product of another, or perhaps the placing of a defective article in the stream of projected

and anticipated use, may produce the ultimate injury”).1

3. In light of the Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against Intec, APV’s motion for

severance is, as APV concedes in its reply, moot

4. APV’s motion to continue the pretrial and trial dates, which motion Intec does not

oppose, will be granted, good cause appearing in light of APV’s recent joinder herein and

the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against Intec. All presently-scheduled dates will be

vacated, and new dates will be set at a case management conference to be conducted on

January 19, 2007, at 10:30 a.m.

B. Motion to Open Discovery, Continue Expert Depositions, and Establish A New

Deadline for Expert Disclosures

APV’s motion to open discovery and to establish a new deadline for expert

disclosures, which motion is unopposed by Intec, will be granted, good cause appearing in

light of APV’s recent joinder herein and the vacatur of the existing trial date.

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 281 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 5
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

In light of the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against Intec, APV’s motion to continue

expert depositions is, as APV concedes in its reply, moot. 

C. Motion to Open Discovery

APV’s motion to open discovery will be denied as duplicative, such relief having

been granted above in connection with APV’s “Motion to Open Discovery, Continue Expert

Depositions, and Establish A New Deadline for Expert Disclosures.” 

CONCLUSION

For the reason stated above,

1. APV’s “Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Sever the Third Party Action,

and/or Change the Trial Date and Enlarge Time for the Settlement Conference, Pretrial

Conference, and Discovery Cutoff” is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as

follows:

a. The First and Third Causes of Action in the FATC are hereby DISMISSED;

in all other respects, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

b. The motion to sever is DENIED as moot.

c. The motion to continue the pretrial and trial dates is GRANTED, and all

currently set dates, including the December 19, 2006 pretrial and January 8, 2007 trial

dates, are hereby VACATED.

2. APV’s “Motion to Open Discovery, Continue Expert Depositions, and Establish a

New Deadline for Expert Disclosures” is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as

follows:

a. APV’s motion to open discovery and to establish a new deadline for expert

disclosures is hereby GRANTED.

b. APV’s motion to continue expert depositions is DENIED as moot.

3. APV’s “Motion to Open Discovery” is hereby DENIED as duplicative.

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 281 Filed 11/22/06 Page 4 of 5
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

4. The Court will conduct a case management conference on January 19, 2007, at

10:30 a.m. A joint case management statement shall be filed no later than January 12,

2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: November 22, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 281 Filed 11/22/06 Page 5 of 5