United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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
LAW AND ANALYSIS
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.
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
above stated reasons, Defendant's Motion for
Expedited Hearing and Motion to Strike the Motion
to Dismiss the Third Party Complaint Asserted by SGS North
America, Inc. is hereby GRANTED.
further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss
the Third Party Complaintbe stricken from the record in
IS SO ORDERED.
 Rec. Doc. 54.