Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miesen v. Henderson

United States District Court, D. Idaho

August 8, 2018

DALE L. MIESEN, an individual who is a shareholder and who is also bringing this action on behalf of and/or in the right of AIA Services Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary AIA Insurance, Inc.; Plaintiff,
v.
CONNIE TAYLOR HENDERSON, an individual; JOLEE K. DUCLOS, an individual; HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP, an Idaho limited liability partnership; GARY D. BABBITT, an individual; D. JOHN ASHBY, an individual; RICHARD A. RILEY, an individual; MICHAEL W. CASHMAN SR., an individual; JAMES BECK, an individual; R. JOHN TAYLOR, an individual; CROP USA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., an Idaho corporation; AIA SERVICES CORPORATION, an Idaho corporation; AIA INSURANCE, INC.; an Idaho corporation; CROP USA INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC; an Idaho limited liability company; and GEMCAP LENDING I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. CROP USA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., an Idaho corporation; CONNIE TAYLOR HENDERSON, an individual; JOLEE DUCLOS, an individual; R. JOHN TAYLOR, an individual; MICHAEL W. CASHMAN SR., an individual; JAMES BECK, an individual, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
REED TAYLOR, an individual, Third-Party Defendant REED TAYLOR, an individual, Third-Party Defendant/ Counterclaimant,
v.
CONNIE TAYLOR HENDERSON, an individual; R. JOHN TAYLOR, an individual; JAMES BECK, an individual, and UNKNOWN BONDING COMPANY, an unknown entity that issued the unknown fidelity ERISA Bond, Counterdefendants. GEMCAP LENDING I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
QUARLES & BRADY, LLP, a Wisconsin limited legal partnership; and CRUMB & MUNDING, P.S., a Washington professional service corporation, Third-Party Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          DAVID C. NYE U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Third-Party Defendant Crumb & Munding P.S. filed a Motion for Attorney Fees (Dkt. 399) and Third-Party Plaintiff GemCap Lending I, LLC (“GemCap”) filed a Status Report regarding its Amended Third-Party Complaint (Dkt. 402). Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will address the Motion for Attorney Fees without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons outlined below, the Court finds good cause to refrain from ruling on the motion for attorney fees at this time and permit GemCap to reserve a contribution and/or indemnity claim until after a judgment, if any, is entered against GemCap.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Third-Party Plaintiff GemCap filed a Third-Party Complaint against the law firm of Crumb & Munding and the law firm of Quarles & Brady on November 21, 2017. The factual background of the Third-Party Complaint is set forth in the Court's previous Decision. Dkt. 391. The Court incorporates that background in full by reference.

         On December 21, 2017, Crumb & Munding filed a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 303. Shortly thereafter, Crumb & Munding filed a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Dkt. 362. After the Motions were fully briefed, the Court held oral argument on the Motions. The Court ultimately granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding GemCap had failed to state a claim for indemnity/contribution under either Idaho statutory law or Idaho common law. Dkt. 391. However, the Court also found it conceivable that GemCap could allege additional facts to cure the deficiencies the Court identified. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Third-Party Complaint without prejudice, but required GemCap if it wanted to file an amended complaint⸺to seek leave to amend and submit a copy of its proposed amended complaint within 30 days. Id. The Court also denied the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Id.

         On June 29, 2018, GemCap notified the Court that it was not “seek[ing] leave to amend its Third-Party Complaint at th[at] time.” Dkt. 402, at 3. Rather, GemCap stated that “in the unlikely event a judgment is entered against [it] in this action, [it] reserve[d] the right, at that [future] time, to pursue contribution and/or indemnity claims against Crumb & Munding, Quarles & Brady, and/or any other proper party.” Id. Crumbing & Munding objects to this reservation of rights and asks the Court to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint with prejudice and enter judgment against GemCap. Dkt. 409.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. Amended Complaint

Crumb & Munding argues the Court should dismiss the Third-Party Complaint with prejudice and not allow GemCap to assert claims against it later for two main reasons. First, it argues GemCap seeks to “hold[] Crumb & Munding hostage in this litigation.” The Court disagrees with this argument. Crumb & Munding is no longer involved in this litigation and GemCap cannot amend its Third-Party Complaint to bring them back in to this case since it did not do so within the required thirty days. Any claim by GemCap against Crumb & Munding for contribution or indemnification will now need to be asserted, if at all, in a separate action filed after judgment is entered in this case. The validity of the contribution or indemnification claim will be decided in that separate action. Accordingly, Crumb & Munding will not need to monitor this case or incur legal fees in the meantime.

         Second, Crumb & Munding argues dismissal is required because GemCap failed to comply with the Court's orders to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Crumb & Munding notes that dismissals are presumptively with prejudice and courts regularly convert dismissals without prejudice to dismissals with prejudice after a plaintiff fails to comply with a court's amendment deadline. It is true that GemCap failed to strictly comply with the Court's instructions and deadline. However, in effect, GemCap's Status Report is simply a notice to Crumb & Munding that GemCap may file an indemnification action after judgment in this case. That indemnification or contribution action will not exist unless and until after GemCap pays on a judgment.

         As explained in the previous Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. 391), GemCap's only claim against Crumb & Munding is for contribution/implied indemnity, which can be actionable under either common law or Idaho Code section 6-803. This Code section provides in relevant part:

(5) A party shall be jointly and severally liable for the fault of another person or entity or for payment of the proportionate share of another party where they were acting in concert or when a person was acting as an agent or servant of another party. As used in this section, “acting in concert” means pursuing a common plan or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.