The Marine Group, LLC v. Marine Travelift, Inc.
3:10-cv-00846
S.D. Cal.Jul 6, 2012Background
- January 19, 2009 boat hoist accident caused a large motor yacht to fall into a concrete sea wall; Marine Group and National Union sue multiple defendants including ExacTech for damages and other relief.
- Plaintiffs allege the boat lift and related equipment were manufactured, designed, supplied, sold, or distributed by all defendants, including ExacTech.
- ExacTech filed an amended answer on November 29, 2011 with three counterclaims: Contributory Negligence/Comparative Fault, Bad Faith, and Declaratory Relief.
- Plaintiffs moved to dismiss ExacTech’s amended counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the counterclaims fail to state cognizable legal theories.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss ExacTech’s counterclaims in its entirety, rejecting the viability of all three theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ExacTech's first cause of action independent? | Marine Group argues it mirrors defenses and lacks independent relief. | ExacTech contends it seeks contribution based on comparative fault. | Dismissed; treated as an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c). |
| Does ExacTech have an independent bad-faith claim? | Marine Group contends no independent bad-faith filing claim exists. | ExacTech asserts entitlement to fees for bad faith filing. | Dismissed; must pursue under Rule 11, not as a separate counterclaim. |
| Are declaratory relief claims proper here? | Marine Group argues relief is duplicative and improper for ruling on choice of law. | ExacTech seeks declaratory judgments regarding fault and admiralty jurisdiction. | Dismissed; declaratory relief not appropriate for these issues and relief would not resolve a concrete controversy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (pleading standards and dismissal for lack of cognizable claims)
- Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995) (mirror-image or redundant defenses support dismissal)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible grounds for relief)
- Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1998) (declaratory judgments must completely resolve a concrete controversy)
- Babb v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 841 (Cal. 1971) (malicious prosecution cross-claims barred in main action)