Musto v. Office Depoot, Inc., 3:18-cv-02427

Biagio Musto was injured when a chair collapsed during a meeting at Girard Mecadon’s office; the chair had been sold to Mecadon by Office Depot.
Biagio and his wife sued Office Depot for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium.
Office Depot answered, denied liability, and filed a third-party complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 seeking contribution and indemnification from Mecadon.
Mecadon moved to dismiss the third-party complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Office Depot failed to plausibly allege Mecadon’s liability to Office Depot.
The court evaluated whether Office Depot alleged facts that could make Mecadon a joint tortfeasor (for contribution) or show a special legal relationship/secondary liability (for indemnification).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contribution claim sufficiently pleaded under Rule 14	Office Depot: incorporation of Mustos’ allegations and assertions of Mecadon’s negligence suffice to pursue contribution and discovery	Mecadon: Office Depot alleges only legal conclusions; no factual allegations show Mecadon liable or a joint tortfeasor	Dismissed without prejudice — allegations are conclusory and do not plausibly allege Mecadon was a tortfeasor or joint tortfeasor
Whether sole-liability theory is permissible in third-party pleading	Office Depot included an allegation of Mecadon’s sole liability as part of contribution theory	Mecadon: Rule 14 cannot be used to implead a party solely liable to plaintiff	Dismissed as improper — third-party cannot assert third-party defendant is solely liable to plaintiff
Whether indemnification claim sufficiently pleaded	Office Depot: if found liable, Office Depot contends its liability would be secondary and Mecadon primarily responsible, entitling Office Depot to indemnity	Mecadon: Office Depot’s pleading offers only labels and conclusions without alleging a contract or special legal relationship that would create secondary liability	Dismissed without prejudice — no facts showing contractual or legal relationship that compels indemnity

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim, not merely labels and conclusions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations)
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (complaint must show entitlement to relief through factual allegations)
Lasprogata v. Qualls, 397 A.2d 803 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979) (joint tortfeasors act together or their independent acts unite to cause a single injury)
Krentz v. Consol. Rail Corp., 910 A.2d 20 (Pa. 2006) (elements of negligence require duty, breach, causation, and harm)
Builders Supply Co. v. McCabe, 77 A.2d 368 (Pa. 1951) (indemnity requires contract or operation of law creating secondary liability)
City of Wilkes-Barre v. Kaminski Bros., 804 A.2d 89 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002) (common-law indemnity shifts liability when one party’s conduct actually caused the loss)
EQT Prod. Co. v. Tera Servs., LLC, 179 F. Supp. 3d 486 (W.D. Pa. 2016) (indemnification appropriate when relationship legally compels one party to pay for another’s acts)
Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., 223 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2000) (trial court on 12(b)(6) assesses whether plaintiff may offer evidence to support claims)
Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2000) (movant bears burden to show complaint fails to state a claim)