CIVIL ACTION 16-537-SDD-RLB
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Expedited Hearing filed by Defendant, SGS North America, Inc. ("Defendant") on Defendant's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint Asserted by SGS North America, Inc. filed by Plaintiff, Taylor Carroll, ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff has filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Expedited Hearing and Defendant's Motion to Strike. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motions are GRANTED.
Rec. Doc. 51.
Rec. Doc. 56
Rec. Doc. 54.
Rec. Doc. 53.
Rec. Docs. 53 and 54.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint on behalf of his wife Cindy Carroll. The third-party complaint filed by the Defendant asserts claims against Cindy R. Carroll and E.T. International ("Acura of Baton Rouge") - Plaintiff is not named in the third-party complaint. Cindy Carroll separately filed her own Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
Rec. Doc. 48, p. 15.
Rec. Doc. 52.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff cites no controlling law which grants him standing to move for dismissal of a third party complaint in addition to his wife. Plaintiff's basis for moving is "that neither federal nor state law provided a right of indemnity to SGS under the circumstances of this case." Plaintiff cites James Talcott, Inc. v. Allahaban bank, Ltd. as a basis for standing to assert his motion. Tallcott is factually distinguishable from the present case because the moving party did not seek to dismiss the third-party complaint on behalf of, and in addition to, the third-party plaintiff.
444 F.2d 451, 464 (5th Cir. 1971).
Numerous federal district and appellate courts have rejected Plaintiff's expansive interpretation of Rule 14 that "any party may move to strike the third-party claim." As the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reasoned in Essex Builders Group, Inc. v. Amerisure Insurance Co., "The Court cannot conceive how [Plaintiff] has standing to seek dismissal of [Defendant's] cross-claim against [Third-Party Plaintiff], given that the [Defendant's] Third-party Claim does not assert any claims against Plaintiff." The Court agrees that "it is generally accepted that parties lack standing to seek dismissal of parties other than themselves." Furthermore, assuming arguendo that Plaintiff had standing to move on behalf of his wife, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint is redundant to the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Cindy Carroll - the named Third-Party Plaintiff. Given that Plaintiff's motion is redundant, the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), orders that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint be stricken from the record.
See Bank v. Estate of Hayne, 10-2634, 2012 WL 13027250 at *2 (N.D. Al. March 31, 2012); Qwest Corp v. Arizona Corp. Com'n., 08-2374, 2009 WL 3059127 at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2009); Mantin v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 248 F.2d 530, 531 (9th Cir. 1957).
Rec. Doc. 55, p. 2.
429 F.Supp.2d 1274, 1291 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2005).
E.E.O.C. v. Brooks Run Min. Co., L.L.C., 08-00071, 2008 WL 2543545 at *2 (S.D. W. Va. June 23, 2008).
Rec. Doc. 54.
Rec. Doc. 53.
Rec. Doc. 51. --------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana the 8th day of February, 2018.
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA