Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01811/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01811-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
APR Aviation, Inc
Defendant
David Harris
Defendant
Hobar Enterprises LLC
Plaintiff
Yada Yada Yada, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOBAR ENTERPRISES LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

YADA YADA YADA, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01811-SKO

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO FILE A THIRD-PARTY 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 18)

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 14, 2014, Defendant Yada Yada Yada, Inc. ("Defendant")1filed a motion seeking

leave to file a Third-Party Complaint. (Doc. 18.) The motion was set for hearing on May 14, 

2014. No opposition to the motion was filed, the Court took the matter under submission, and the 

hearing set for May 14, 2014, was vacated. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is 

GRANTED. 

 

1 Yada Yada Yada, Inc does business as APR Aviation, Inc.

Case 1:13-cv-01811-SKO Document 24 Filed 05/01/14 Page 1 of 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

2

II. BACKGROUND

This is a property damage suit arising out of an incident involving a Beechcraft King Air 

F90 aircraft (the "aircraft") occurring on April 15, 2013, during the aircraft's landing. Plaintiff 

Hobar Enterprises LLC ("Plaintiff'") owns the aircraft and filed suit against Defendant, who 

performed maintenance on the aircraft's landing gear approximately 5 months prior to the incident. 

Plaintiff alleges that the incident, which caused severe damage to the aircraft, was the result of 

improper maintenance services performed by Defendant. (Doc. 1, ¶ 5.8.) 

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant on November 8, 2013, and a First Amended 

Complaint was filed on November 13, 2013. (Doc. 7.) Defendant answered the amended 

complaint on January 2, 2014. (Doc. 12.) The parties appeared for a scheduling conference on 

March 27, 2014, and a scheduling order was issued. (Doc. 17.) Non-expert discovery in this 

matter closes on August 29, 2014, and all expert discovery concludes on December 15, 2014. 

In conducting informal discovery in December 2013 and March 2014, the parties attended 

onsite airfield and aircraft inspections at Odessa, Washington, where the incident occurred. (Doc. 

18-2, Buchanan Decl., ¶ 3.) David Harris, the pilot of the aircraft at the time of the incident, was 

present at the inspections. Mr. Harris represented to the participants of the inspections that his 

intent at the time of the incident was to make a short landing, execute a "firm" touchdown of the 

aircraft, and turn off the runway at the midpoint taxiway. (Doc. 18-2, Buchanan Decl., ¶ 4.) After 

considering statements made by Mr. Harris about his actions in landing the aircraft and other 

informal discovery, Defendant believes that the occurrence of a hard landing may be one of 

several contributing factors to causing the aircraft's gear collapse and that Mr. Harris may be 

responsible for causing the "hard" landing. (Doc. 18-2, Buchanan Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant now 

seeks to serve and file a Third-Party Complaint against Mr. Harris.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) provides for service of a third-party complaint upon 

a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to [the original defendant] for all or part 

of the claim against it. The defendant need not obtain leave of the court to serve and filed a thirdCase 1:13-cv-01811-SKO Document 24 Filed 05/01/14 Page 2 of 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

3

party complaint, if it is filed within 14 days after the defendant serves its original answer to the 

complaint in the main action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). In all other circumstances, leave of the 

court to serve and file a third-party complaint must be sought pursuant to a request brought by 

motion. 

The purpose of impleader under Rule 14 is to promote judicial efficiency by eliminating 

the need for the defendant to bring a separate action against the party or parties secondarily or 

derivatively liable to the defendant on account of the plaintiff's claim. Southwest Admin., Inc. v. 

Rozay's Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986). The decision whether to permit a third-party 

claim pursuant to Rule 14 is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. As the rule is 

designed to reduce multiplicity of litigation, it is construed liberally in favor of allowing

impleader. Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389, 394 (1st Cir. 1999).

B. Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint is Granted

Because it has been more than 14 days since Defendant served and filed its original answer 

on January 2, 2014, leave of court must be granted before Defendant may serve and file a ThirdParty Complaint. 

Defendant argues that it has a colorable claim for negligence, contribution, and equitable 

indemnification against David Harris. Defendant's proposed Third-Party Complaint alleges that 

Mr. Harris, who was the pilot of the aircraft at the time of the incident, acted negligently by

electing to attempt a "short landing," attempting to turn off the runway at the midpoint taxiway, 

and causing the aircraft to undergo a "hard landing." (Doc. 18-2, ¶ 12.) According to Defendant, 

Mr. Harris' actions were the direct, legal, and proximate cause of the incident and any damages 

resulting to Plaintiff. (Doc. 18-2, ¶ 14.)

Mr. Harris may be liable for all or part of the claim against Defendant in the event that 

liability is established. Permitting Defendant to file a Third-Party Complaint against Mr. Harris 

will promote judicial efficiency and consolidate the litigation regarding this incident. Upon 

review of Defendant's motion, supporting documentation, and proposed Third-Party Complaint, 

the requirements of Rule 14 have been satisfied, and Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

Case 1:13-cv-01811-SKO Document 24 Filed 05/01/14 Page 3 of 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

4

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion for leave to file a Third-Party Complaint against David Harris 

as proposed in Defendant's motion (Doc. 18-2, p. 5-9) is GRANTED; and

2. Defendant shall serve David Harris with the Third-Party Complaint within 21 days 

from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01811-SKO Document 24 Filed 05/01/14 Page 4 of 4