Pt (Persero) Merpati Nusantara Airlines v. Hume & Associates Pc

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PT (PERSERO) MERP A TI ) AIRLINES )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civ. Case No. 07-1701 (RJL)

)

HUME & ASSOCS., PC, et al., )

)

Defendants.

C-

MEMORANDUM ORDER

(June ~, 2009) [#35 and #36]

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants Hume, Hume & Associates, and Cooper, on September 24, 2007. In response, defendant Hume ("cross plaintiff') filed a crosscIaim against Hume & Associates and Cooper ("cross defendants") on March 4,2008. The crosscIaim seeks indemnification, including attorney's fees and costs, should plaintiff be awarded a judgment. Crossclaim ~ 14. Plaintiff was never awarded a judgment because, on February 4,2009, plaintiffs case was dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Subsequently, Hume filed a Motion for Default Judgment on Crossclaim [Dkt. # 35] on February 5, 2009, and cross defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Hume's Crossclaim [Dkt. # 36] on February 9,2009.

Because the plaintiffs case has been dismissed, Hume's crosscIaim for indemnification and attorney's fees is DISMISSED as moot. See, e.g., Threshermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wallingford Mut. Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 776, 780 (7th Cir. 1994) (dismissing as moot a cross plaintiffs crossclaim against a cross defendant once the plaintiffs claim

2

against cross plaintiff was dismissed); McGrath v. Poppleton, 550 F.Supp.2d 564, 570 n.10 (D. N.J. 2008) (noting that a cross plaintiffs crossclaims "obviously became moot" when claims against the cross plaintiff were dismissed); Inside Scoop, Inc v. Curry, 755 F.Supp. 426, 434 (D.D.C. 1989) (dismissing as moot a cross plaintiffs crossclaim once judgment was entered in favor of cross plaintiff). Indeed, the one case Hume cites to support his continued pursuit of attorney's fees, despite dismissal of plaintiff s underlying claim, is not applicable because it addresses interpretation of a particular contractual indemnification provision not at issue here. United States v. GTS Admiral William Callaghan, 643 F.Supp. 1483 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

Thus, for the forgoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant/cross plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment on Crossclaim [Dkt. #35] is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Crossclaim of Robert T. Hume [Dkt. #36]

is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.