Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00038/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00038-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Gonzalez
Plaintiff
Harris Farms, Inc.
Cross Claimant
Harris Ranch Beef Company
Defendant
Harris Ranch Beef Holding Company
Defendant
Springer-Miller Systems, Inc.
Cross 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HARRIS RANCH BEEF COMPANY, a California 

corporation; HARRIS RANCH BEEF HOLDING 

COMPANY, a California corporation; HARRIS 

FARMS, INC., a California corporation; and 

DOES 2 through 10, inclusive,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00038-LJO-SAB

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

HARRIS FARMS, INC., a California corporation, 

 

 Third-Party Complainant, 

 v. 

SPRINGER-MILLER SYSTEMS, INC., a 

Vermont corporation and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 

 

Third-Party-Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

Third Party Defendants, Springer-Miller Systems, Inc., and Does 1-20, (collectively, “SpringerMiller”) move to dismiss Harris Farms, Inc.’s, (“Harris Farms”) Third-Party Complaint (“TPC”) 

(incorrectly filed as a Cross-Complaint) Doc. 27. For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders the 

parties to file supplemental briefs on the issue of equitable indemnification. 

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) brought an action on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of 

Fresno, against Harris Farms, the owners and operators of a restaurant and country store, for printing 

Case 1:14-cv-00038-LJO-SAB Document 45 Filed 11/06/14 Page 1 of 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

2

both the last five digits of Gonzalez’s credit card along with its expiration date on Gonzalez’s receipt in 

violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), an amendment to the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g). Doc. 2 at 7. Gonzalez sought damages under 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681n, which imposes actual damages of anywhere from $100 to $1,000 for willful violation of the

FCRA. The case was removed to the United States District Court Eastern District of California, Fresno 

Division on January 10, 2014. Harris Farms brought filed the TPC on June 2, 2014, asserting causes of 

action for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief against Springer-Miller. Doc. 20.

Springer-Miller, a Vermont corporation, licensed hardware and software point-of-sale systems that 

allowed Harris Ranch to process credit cards. The two companies’ business relationship was 

memorialized in a contract (“the Contract”) entered into on June 10, 2004. Doc. 27-4 at 2. SpringerMiller filed a motion to dismiss the TPC on July 29, 2014, asserting that there is no right to indemnity or 

contribution under the FCRA and that any state law claims would be barred by the contract. Doc. 27.

Harris Farms filed an opposition on September 15, 2014. Doc. 35. Springer-Miller replied on September

29, 2014. Doc. 37.The matter was taken under submission on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 

Doc. 39.

III. ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE EQUITABLE INDEMNITY

 After thoroughly reviewing the papers and conducting its own research, the Court orders 

additional briefing on the applicability of equitable indemnity to this case. All parties agree that, under 

California law, “a right to equitable indemnity ‘is premised on a joint legal obligation to another for 

damages.’ Western Steamship Lines, Inc. V. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital, 8 Cal. 4th 100, 114 (1994).” 

Doc. 35 at 19. It appears to be well settled that, in California, “equitable indemnity is only available 

among tortfeasors who are jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s injury.” In re Medical Capital 

Securities Litigation 842 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (internal citations and quotation 

marks omitted).1The parties, however, fail to address that neither is alleged to have committed a tort. 

 

1 The parties dispute whether California law or Vermont law controls, as there is a choice of law provision in the Contract 

Case 1:14-cv-00038-LJO-SAB Document 45 Filed 11/06/14 Page 2 of 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

3

“As a condition of equitable indemnity, there must be some basis for tort liability against the proposed 

indemnitor, usually involving breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff.” HCC Life Ins. Co. v. Managed 

Ben. Adm’rs LLC, No. 207-CV-02542-MCE-DAD, 2008 WL 2439665, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2008)

(citing Stonegate Homeowners Ass’n v. Staben, 144 Cal. App. 4th 740, 751 (2006). As the underlying 

claims in this case concern an alleged violation of FACTA, the only equitable indemnity claim currently 

before this court is premised upon a federal statutory violation, not tort law.

2 At least one district court

has found that it is an unsettled matter of California law whether a California statutory claim can form 

the basis for equitable indemnity. Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, 948 F. 

Supp. 942, 944 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (discussing claims arising under the California Corporations Code). 

That same district court found, however, that a claim arising under the federal securities laws cannot 

form the basis for a California claim of equitable indemnity, as “federal contribution principles rather 

than state law indemnity principles govern liability spreading for federal securities law claims.” Id. 

Harris Farms is directed to file a supplemental brief, not exceeding 7 pages in length, on or 

before November 13, 2014, addressing whether a California claim of equitable indemnity can ever be 

premised upon an underlying violation of FACTA. Springer-Miller may file a response of equal length 

on or before November 20, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

indicating the Contract “shall be governed by the laws of the State of Vermont.” For a choice of law provision to apply to a 

dispute, the relevant claims must arise from the contract containing the choice of law provision. Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 

F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2010). When the contract is tangential to a claim, the contract’s choice of law provision will not 

apply. Id. In Narayan, for example,“[w]hile the contract [was] likely [to] be used as evidence to prove or disprove the 

statutory claims, the claims [did] not arise out of the contract, involve the interpretation of any contract terms, or otherwise

require there to be a contract,” so the choice of law provision in the contract did not control. Id. Likewise, here, there is no 

contract claim in the TPC, and the underlying claim against Harris Farms concerns FACTA. Accordingly, the Court evaluates 

the present equitable indemnity claim under California law. Even if Vermnot law applies, the same general principle appears 

to control under Vermont law: equitable indemnification operates “as an exception to the longstanding rule in Vermont 

barring contribution among joint tortfeasors.” Knisely v. Cent. Vermont Hosp., 171 Vt. 644, 646, 769 A.2d 5, 8 (2000).

2 Harris Farms asserts that breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims are available to it, but no such claim is 

presently before the Court. 

Case 1:14-cv-00038-LJO-SAB Document 45 Filed 11/06/14 Page 3 of 3