Aguirre Guerra v. Dematic Corp.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * * 9 GUISELA AGUIRRE GUERRA, Case No. 3:18-CV-00376-LRH-CLB

10 Plaintiff,

11 v. AMENDED ORDER1

12 DEMATIC CORP., a Delaware Corporation; SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., a Delaware 13 Corporation; DOES 1-25; and BLACK CORPORATIONS A-Z, 14 Defendants. 15 16 DEMATIC CORP., a Delaware Corporation, 17 Third-Party Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY, LLC f/k/a 20 SALLY BEAUTY COMPANY, INC.,

21 Third-Party Defendant.

22 23 Third-party defendant Sally Beauty Supply, LLC (“Sally Beauty”) has filed a motion to 24 dismiss the third-party complaint of defendant/third-party plaintiff Dematic Corp. (“Dematic”) 25 (ECF No. 19) for failure to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 14(a)(1) and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 30). Dematic has opposed Sally Beauty’s motion 27 to dismiss and filed a countermotion for leave to amend pleadings (ECF No. 33, 34). Sally Beauty 1 has replied in support of the motion to dismiss third-party complaint and in opposition to the 2 countermotion for leave to amend pleadings (ECF No. 35, 36), and Dematic has replied in support 3 of its countermotion for leave to amend pleadings (ECF No. 37). 4 This case arises from an incident that occurred on June 15, 2016, wherein the plaintiff in 5 the underlying lawsuit, Guisela Aguirre Guerra, alleged that she was injured while operating a 6 warehouse conveyor gate designed by Dematic and located at a warehouse operated by Sally 7 Beauty. (ECF No. 1-1 at 5–7). Dematic filed the third-party complaint against Sally Beauty on 8 January 24, 2019, claiming that Sally Beauty had expressly agreed to indemnify Dematic from all 9 third-party claims arising from the equipment sold to Sally Beauty and that it was entitled to an 10 immediate defense from Guerra’s claims. (ECF No. 19 at 3–4). 11 Impleader and third-party practice are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14, 12 which provides that:

13 “A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it. But 14 the third-party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court’s leave if it files the third- party complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer.” 15 16 Fed. R. Civ. P 14(a)(1). On a timely motion, the decision whether to implead a third-party 17 defendant is left to the broad discretion of the trial court and will only be reviewed for abuse of 18 discretion. Sw. Adm'rs, Inc. v. Rozay's Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 19 479 U.S. 1065 (1987); United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 452 (9th 20 Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1071 (1984). FRCP 14(a)(1) requires a party who wishes to file 21 a third-party complaint outside of the 14-day window to move for leave to implead the third-party 22 so that the court may exercise its discretion in granting or denying the request. 23 It is undisputed that no such explicitly titled motion was filed in this case. Dematic argues 24 that the Court should treat a stipulation it previously filed as a motion for leave to implead Sally 25 Beauty. This stipulation was entered by order of this Court on January 9, 2019, which contained 26 the following provision: “[d]efendant Dematic Corp. may file a third-party complaint against Sally 27 Beauty Supply, the purchaser and owner of the product allegedly involved in Plaintiff’s injury.” 1 || Dematic did not serve a summons or complaint on Sally Beauty within 14 days after serving its 2 || original answer or file a timely “motion” for leave to file a third-party complaint under Federal 3 || Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1). However, the stipulation allowing the third-party complaint was 4 || made in apparent good faith shortly after Dematic discovered reported modifications to the subject 5 || equipment by Sally Beauty. Therefore, the issue is whether the stipulation between the parties was 6 || acceptable as a substitute for a 14(a) motion and whether the court should exercise its discretion 7 || and allow the third-party complaint. 8 Although Dematic did not file a motion for leave to implead Sally Beauty, the Court 9 || reviewed the proposed stipulation and the terms contained within it and decided to grant it. (ECF 10 || No. 15). The fact that Dematic’s stipulation was not explicitly filed as a motion is, at best, a 11 || technical difference. The Court declines to read Rule 14(a) in such a rigid manner and accepts the 12 || stipulation as a substitute for a 14(a)(1) motion. The purpose of Rule 14(a) is to prohibit a 13 || defendant from impleading a third party without the Court’s permission when the case is 14 || underway, and by filing a stipulation, Dematic certainly sought the Court’s permission to implead 15 || Sally Beauty. The Court accordingly exercised its discretion and granted the stipulation, allowing 16 || Dematic to implead Sally Beauty. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that third-party defendant Sally Beauty Supply, LLC’s 18 || motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) is DENIED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that third-party plaintiff Dematic Corp.’s motion to file an 20 || amended complaint (ECF No. 34) is DENIED as the court finds the existing third-party complaint 21 || is legally sufficient in this matter. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sally Beauty shall have 20 days from the entry of this 23 || order by which to file an answer to the third-party complaint (ECF No. 19). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , □ 25 DATED this 14th day of January, 2020. 26 LAR . HIC 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE