Crane Cartage, LLC v. Western York DC III, LLC et al

BRIEF IN SUPPORT Supplemental re MOTION for Summary Judgment

M.D. Pa.June 6, 2018

POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: DANIEL S. ALTSCHULER, ESQUIRE E-MAIL: daltschuler@postschell.com I.D. # 49470 FOUR PENN CENTER, 13TH FLOOR 1600 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2808 215-587-1000 CRANE CARTAGE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN YORK DC III, LLC f/k/a IIT YORK III, LLC, etal, Defendants, v. TRADESMAN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. RUPPERT DETECTIVE AGENCY, LLP, Third-Party Defendants. ATTORNEYS FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, RUPPERT DETECTIVE AGENCY, LLP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1:16-C V-00724-JEJ Judge John E. Jones THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, RUPPERT DETECTIVE AGENCY, LLP’S, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL. LLC’S THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT Third-Party Defendant, Ruppert Detective Agency, LLP (hereinafter “Ruppert”), by and through its attorneys, Post & Schell, P.C., hereby files this Supplemental Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgement. Case 1:16-cv-00724-JEJ Document 128 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 6 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 29, 2016 Plaintiff, Crane Cartage, LLC (hereinafter “Crane”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania naming Defendants, Western York DC III, LLC f/k/a IIT York DC III, LLC, Cushman & Wakefield of Pennsylvania, Inc., East Coast Facilities, Tradesmen International, LLC (hereinafter “Tradesmen”) and Robert Fisher as Defendants. Crane did not name Ruppert as a Defendant. On August 1, 2016, Tradesmen filed a Third Party Complaint against Ruppert asserting contribution and indemnity claims only. Tradesmen is the only party that has filed a claim against Ruppert in this action. On February 1, 2018 Ruppert filed a Motion for Summary because, inter alia, there is no dispute of material fact that Ruppert’s security guard, Fred Flinchbaugh, acted reasonably and in accordance with Crane’s policies and procedures by allowing Robert Fisher into the subject facility to use the bathroom. On March 8, 2018 only Tradesmen filed a Response in opposition to Ruppert’s motion. However, at the end of May 2018 the parties were advised that Plaintiff had settled all claims that had been asserted against Tradesmen. Accordingly, as discussed below, Tradesmen’s claims against Ruppert for indemnity and contribution are no longer viable and, therefore, must be dismissed with prejudice. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT For over 75 years, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that an alleged secondarily liable party seeking indemnity from the alleged primarily liable party after entering into a voluntary settlement must prove that “the party paying was [itself] legally liable and could have been compelled to satisfy the claim.” Tugboat Indian Co. v. A/S Ivarans Rederi. 334 Pa. 15, 21 (Pa. 1939); see also ExxonMobil Oil Corn, v. Lucchesi, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14650 at *8-12 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2004) (stating that “a party seeking indemnity must first establish that it was 2 Case 1:16-cv-00724-JEJ Document 128 Filed 06/06/18 Page 2 of 6 itself liable to the injured party and could have been compelled to satisfy the claim”); Kemper Nat’l P&C Cos. V. Smith, 615 A.2d 372, 376 (Pa. Super. 1992) (“It is well settled that voluntary payments in exchange for the compromise of a claim are not compulsory and do not entitle the paying party to a claim for subrogation or indemnity); Ferraro v. Turner Constr. Co., 30 Pa. D. & C. 5th 423 (C.P. Phila. 2013)(stating that in order to be entitled to indemnification it was not sufficient for a party to simply settle its litigation if it did not have a legal obligation to pay). “A mere showing by a party seeking indemnity that there was a reasonable possibility that it might have been held liable if it had not settled...is not sufficient to recover indemnity; actual legal liability must be shown.” Besser Co. v. Paco Corp.. 671 F. Supp. 1010, 1013 (M.D. Pa. 1987) [internal citations omitted]. The same holds true for a party pursuing a claim for contribution. See ExxonMobil Oil Corp, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14650 at *8-12 (stating that “if the settling party does not prove that he himself is a joint tortfeasor, he is considered a volunteer and is not entitled to contribution from a non-settling party”); see also Besser. 671 F. Supp. at 1015 (holding that in order to recover contribution the party asserting that claim must prove that both it and the party from whom contribution is sought were joint tortfeasors in the original action). Here, Crane and Tradesmen voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement and there has been no finding that Tradesmen was legally liable to pay all or part of any claim to Crane. Similarly, there has been no finding that Tradesmen was a joint tortfeasor; in fact, Tradesmen has denied any and all liability throughout this litigation, including within the two summary judgment motions that Tradesmen filed [ECF #96/97 & 98/99], Tradesmen’s voluntary settlement with Crane, with no determination having been made that Tradesmen was a joint tortfeasor or that Tradesmen was “legally liable and could have been compelled to satisfy the 3 Case 1:16-cv-00724-JEJ Document 128 Filed 06/06/18 Page 3 of 6 claim”, effectively destroys Tradesmen’s ability to pursue indemnification and/or contribution from Ruppert.1 Importantly, Tradesmen itself has even recognized that a party cannot seek contribution and/or indemnification if that party is not considered to be a joint tortfeasor. See Tradesmen’s Memorandum in support of Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF #99] at p. 12. Accordingly, in addition to the reasons set forth in Ruppert’s Motion for Summary Judgement and Reply Brief, Tradesmen’s claims for contribution and indemnity against Ruppert are no longer viable, fail as a matter of law and must be dismissed with prejudice. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Ruppert respectfully requests that Defendant, Tradesmen International, LLC’s, Third Party Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: — DATED: June 5, 2018 DANIEL S. ALTSCHULER, ESQUIRE Attorneys for THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, RUPPERT DETECTIVE AGENCY, LLP 1 This is in addition to the fact that the factual record has clearly established that Ruppert did not breach any duty owed with respect to the security services Ruppert was providing at the subject property, as detailed in Ruppert’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply Brief. To quote Tradesmen, a party “cannot demand indemnification from a non-negligent party.” See ECF #99 at p. 12. Tradesmen’s claims against Ruppert fail as a matter of law because they have no substantive and/or factual merit, as well as for the reasons set forth above pertaining to the recent settlement reached in this matter. 4 Case 1:16-cv-00724-JEJ Document 128 Filed 06/06/18 Page 4 of 6 POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: DANIEL S. ALTSCHULER, ESQUIRE E-MAIL: daltschuler@postschell.com I.D. # 49470 FOUR PENN CENTER, 13TH FLOOR 1600 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2808 215-587-1000 CRANE CARTAGE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN YORK DC III, LLC f/k/a IIT YORK III, LLC, et at., Defendants, v. TRADESMAN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. RUPPERT DETECTIVE AGENCY, LLP, Third-Party Defendants. ATTORNEYS FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, RUPPERT DETECTIVE AGENCY, LLP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1:16-CV-00724-JEJ Judge John E. Jones CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was e-filed via on the ECF System (which is available for public viewing and printing) and has thus been served this day upon all counsel of record: Steven A. Haber, Esquire Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Flippel, LLP 1500 Market Street- 34th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Gordon A. Einhom, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street- Sixth Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 5 Case 1:16-cv-00724-JEJ Document 128 Filed 06/06/18 Page 5 of 6 Christopher Koehler, Esquire Frantz Ward LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Jerry Finefrock, Esquire McHale Law Group 53 North Duke Street, Suite 401 Lancaster, PA 17602 POST & SCHELL, P.C. DATED: June $,2018 DANIEL S. ALTSCHULER, ESQUIRE Attorneys for THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, RUPPERT DETECTIVE AGENCY, LLP 6 Case 1:16-cv-00724-JEJ Document 128 Filed 06/06/18 Page 6 of 6