64 F. Supp. 3d 955
S.D. Miss.2014Background
- The United States filed FHA/ADA claims against several developers, owners, and builders of apartment complexes.
- Third-party Plaintiffs asserted Rule 14 claims for indemnity/contribution against multiple Third-party Defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing no federal right to indemnity/contribution and preemption of state-law claims.
- The Court denied joinder under Rule 19/20 and concluded dismissal of Third-party Defendants was warranted.
- The Court sua sponte dismissed some remaining claims and denied as moot the joint stay motion.
- The Court ultimately granted all seven Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the Third-party Defendants with prejudice, terminating them from the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FHA/ADA preclude state-law indemnity or contribution claims | Dawn Plaintiffs rely on state-law contribution rights. | FHA/ADA preempt state-law indemnity/contribution. | Preemption applies; state-law claims barred. |
| Whether there is a federal right to indemnity or contribution under FHA/ADA | Plaintiffs seek contribution from third parties if FHA violations proven. | No right to indemnity or contribution under FHA/ADA. | No federal indemnity/contribution remedy. |
| Whether Mississippi law allows contribution claims against Third-party Defendants | State-law claims may proceed as contribution. | Mississippi law prohibits contribution absent joint judgment; preempted by FHA/ADA. | Contribution claims barred; preempted; dismissed. |
| Whether the cities/counties owed a duty to the Third-party Plaintiffs | Ridgeland/Hattiesburg/Harrison County/Jackson County may be liable for permits/COs. | No duty owed to Third-party Plaintiffs; non-delegable duty resides with developers/owners. | No duty; claims against cities/counties dismissed. |
| Whether joinder under Rule 19/20 was appropriate | Rules 19/20 permit joinder to achieve complete relief. | Joinder not necessary; no complete relief impeded; Rule 20 not applicable to join as defendants. | Joinder denied; Rule 19/20 not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Gibraltar Bank, FSB v. Smith, 62 F.3d 133 (5th Cir.1995) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards apply; sua sponte dismissals affirmed)
- Guthrie v. Tifco Indus., 941 F.2d 374 (5th Cir.1991) (Sua sponte dismissal standards; non-delegable duties discussed)
- Niles Bolton Assocs. v. Equal Rights Ctr., 602 F.3d 597 (4th Cir.2010) (Non-delegable duty to comply with FHA; Rule 19 considerations)
- Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5 (Supreme Court 1990) (Not all joint tortfeasors must be named; Rule 19 considerations)