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.

McMasters v. Hendrickson USA, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville

January 22, 2015

DARYL McMASTERS, Plaintiff,
v.
HENDRICKSON USA, LLC, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN, II, Senior Judge.

This litigation began when Daryl McMasters sued his former employer, Hendrickson USA, LLC, for retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Hendrickson responded with eight counterclaims, alleging that Daryl stole some computer software and sabotaged a Hendrickson computer system when his termination seemed apparent. In addition, Hendrickson brought a third-party complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 against Daryl's wife, Molly McMasters, alleging that she played a role in Daryl's software theft.

Currently, two motions are pending before the Court. First, Molly moved to dismiss Hendrickson's third-party complaint because it did not comply with Rule 14. Second, Daryl believes the counterclaims against him and the third-party complaint against his wife were retaliatory, so he moved to amend his complaint per Rule 15. For the reasons that follow, the Court will sustain both motions.

I.

Few facts are required to resolve these motions. Daryl McMasters was a computer programmer at Hendrickson. He took FMLA leave from November 14, 2013, to January 1, 2014. While he was gone, Hendrickson hired someone else to perform his duties. When he returned, Daryl learned that his temporary replacement was staying. His supervisor, Neil Szczepanksi, requested that Daryl return a computer disk that he received from Cimulus, Inc., a software development company, in 2003. Despite his best efforts, he was unable to locate it. Hendrickson fired Daryl on January 13 for failing to return the disk as instructed. He claims this reason is pretext for retaliation for taking FMLA-protected medical leave.

Hendrickson responded with eight counterclaims, including common law claims and violations of state and federal statutes. These eight causes of action derive from two allegations: (1) Daryl stole software owned by Hendrickson and used it to benefit his wife's software company, M&M Programming, Inc.; and (2) when it looked like he might be fired, Daryl logged onto the Hendrickson computer system and sabotaged it. Daryl believes these are frivolous and motivated by Hendrickson's desire to retaliate against him for filing suit. Hendrickson also filed a third-party complaint against his wife (Molly) that alleges a violation of a Kentucky statute and civil conspiracy.

II.

The Court first considers Molly's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint against her. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 provides, in relevant part: "A defending party may, as thirdparty 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." Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a)(1). As the Sixth Circuit has explained, "[t]hird-party pleading is appropriate only where the third-party defendant's liability to the thirdparty plaintiff is dependent on the outcome of the main claim; one that merely arises out of the same set of facts does not allow a third-party defendant to be impleaded." American Zurich Ins. Co., Inc. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 512 F.3d 800, 805 (6th Cir. 2008). "A defendant attempting to transfer the liability asserted against him by the original plaintiff to the third-party defendant is therefore the essential criterion of a third-party claim." Id. As such, "Rule 14(a) does not allow a third-party complaint to be founded on a defendant's independent cause of action against a third-party defendant, even though arising out of the same occurrence underlying plaintiff's claim, because a third-party complaint must be founded on a third party's actual or potential liability to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant." Id.

Hendrickson's third-party complaint against Molly falls well outside the boundaries of Rule 14. Daryl sued Hendrickson for retaliation under the FMLA. As the defendant to that action, Hendrickson could only bring a third-party complaint against a "nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it"-that is, a party who might be liable to Hendrickson for Daryl's FMLA retaliation claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a)(1). The Court cannot see any way that Molly, as the wife of the initial plaintiff, "is or may be liable" to Hendrickson for the FMLA claim. Perhaps there is another avenue for Hendrickson to bring Molly into this lawsuit. As pled, however, Hendrickson's third-party complaint under Rule 14 is improper.

Hendrickson devotes a substantial portion of its brief to arguing that this Court has diversity and supplemental jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1331 & 1367. Perhaps so, but compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a wholly separate matter. A proper claim needs both. Because the third-party complaint fails to comply with Rule 14, it must be dismissed irrespective of these statutes.

III.

The Court next considers Daryl's motion for leave to amend his complaint. Rule 15(a)(2) provides that "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). "In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be freely given.'" Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, there is no allegation of delay or bad faith or undue prejudice; rather, Hendrickson objects because it believes the proposed amendment would be futile. An amendment is futile if it could not overcome a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000).

Daryl seeks to add three paragraphs to his complaint that describe what he believes to be additional retaliatory conduct by Hendrickson. These paragraphs state:

32. After McMasters filed his Complaint in this matter, Hendrickson filed a counterclaim against McMasters alleging a variety of claims against him, none of which were raised prior to his filing ...

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.