277 F. Supp. 3d 176
D. Mass.2017Background
- Aura Beatriz Garcia died when the McArdle drawbridge in East Boston opened and closed while she was on it; the bridge is owned/operated by the City of Boston.
- Hardesty & Hanover entities were alleged to have been responsible for installing/maintaining video and surveillance equipment on the bridge; spotlights were reportedly not working the day of the incident.
- Plaintiff Mirna Hernandez (personal representative) sued multiple defendants, including the City and the Hardesty & Hanover defendants, for wrongful death and § 1983 claims (some § 1983 claims later dismissed as to several defendants, including the City).
- Hardesty & Hanover filed cross-claims against co-defendants seeking indemnification (contractual or implied) and, alternatively, contribution under Massachusetts law.
- The City moved to dismiss those cross-claims for failure to state a claim; the court considered Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standards and accepted cross-claim allegations as true for purposes of the motion.
- The court denied the City’s motion to dismiss but stayed the indemnity and contribution cross-claims as premature until defendants are actually found liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contractual or implied contractual indemnity is pleaded | Hardesty asserts implied contractual indemnity may exist from relationship | Boston argues no facts plausibly show a special relationship or intent to indemnify | Court: No plausible contractual indemnity alleged; cross-claim lacks facts showing special relationship (contract theory not sustained) |
| Whether common-law/tort indemnity is pleaded | Hardesty claims its liability was passive/secondary, supporting common-law indemnity | Boston argues Hardesty may have been a primary tortfeasor so indemnity inappropriate | Court: At 12(b)(6) stage, must accept cross-claim allegations as true; decline to dismiss common-law indemnity claim now |
| Whether contribution claim is pleaded | Hardesty asserts right to contribution among joint tortfeasors under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231B | Boston contends statutory requirements and that cross-claim is premature or insufficient | Court: Contribution claim survives plausibility review (assumes cross-claim facts true) |
| Whether cross-claims are ripe or should be stayed/dismissed as premature | Hardesty seeks to preserve cross-claims now as cross-claims in pending case | Boston seeks dismissal because claims are contingent until liability is adjudicated | Court: Claims are contingent and technically premature but dismissal would be pointless; court DENIED dismissal and STAYED the cross-claims until defendants are actually found liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of plausibility standard)
- Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 496 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (pleading-stage fact-acceptance rule)
- Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 1999) (pleading standards citation)
- Gagliardi v. Sullivan, 513 F.3d 301 (1st Cir. 2008) (pleading elements required to state a claim)
- Araujo v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket S.S. Auth., 693 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982) (sources and limits of indemnification rights)
- Rathbun v. Western Mass. Elec. Co., 395 Mass. 361 (Mass. 1985) (common-law indemnity principles)
- LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton J.V., 463 Mass. 316 (Mass. 2012) (policy and scope of contribution among tortfeasors)