Opinion
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff GCube Insurance Services, Inc. brought this action against defendant Lindsay Corporation, Inc. ("Lindsay") arising out of Lindsay's provision of A-frame supports for a Solar Steam Generation array ("SSG array"). On March 1, 2013, Lindsay filed a third-party complaint ("TPC") against Areva Solar, Inc.; Ausra CA I, LLC, now known as Areva Solar CA I, LLC ("Areva Solar CA"); Special Services Contractors, Inc.; Lloyd W. Aubry Co., Inc.; Material Integrity Solutions, Inc.; and Zoes one through fifty. (Docket No. 21.) Lindsay brings claims of negligence, equitable indemnity, equitable contribution, and declaratory relief.
Third-party defendants Areva Solar, Inc., and Areva Solar CA now move to dismiss the TPC for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 33.) On May 13, 2013, Lindsay voluntarily dismissed Areva Solar, Inc. (Docket No. 37.)
To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead "only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This "plausibility standard, " however, "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully, " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and "[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). In deciding whether a plaintiff has stated a claim, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).
In plaintiff's Complaint for subrogation, plaintiff alleges that it issued an insurance policy to Ausra, Inc. ("Ausra") on or about March 20, 2009, insuring all construction, erection, and operation activities associated with a SSG array located at Ausra's Kimberlina facility in Bakersfield, California. (Compl. ¶ 7 (Docket No. 1).) Plaintiff alleges that Lindsay specially manufactured twenty-five steel A-Frame supports for the array at a plant in Omaha, Nebraska, and then had the supports delivered to the Kimberlina facility. (Id. ¶¶ 8-10.) On or about May 28, 2010, as the SSG array components were raised atop the A-Frame supports, twenty-four of the supports buckled at the joint that Lindsay allegedly cut, welded, and manufactured. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.)
Ausra tendered its claim for all losses and damages resulting from the incident to plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges that an investigation revealed incomplete fusion of the welds performed by Lindsay at the joints of the A-Frame supports. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.) Plaintiff paid for all losses and damages resulting from the incident and now pursues subrogation rights against Lindsay, (id. ¶ 24), asserting claims for strict products liability and negligence.
Areva Solar CA contends that Lindsay has failed to allege sufficient "facts to support a possible scenario under which the subrogor Areva [Solar CA] may be liable for Lindsay's alleged liability to the subrogee [plaintiff]" and facts to support its allegation that plaintiff is not the subrogee of Areva Solar CA. (Mem. in Supp. at 2:10-12 (Docket No. 33).) Although Areva Solar CA does not explicitly argue as much, it must be its contention that Areva Solar CA is the same entity as Ausra or that some other basis exists for finding a subrogation relationship between it and plaintiff. In contrast, it is Lindsay's contention that Areva Solar CA is a different entity from Ausra. Lindsay's TPC treats Areva Solar CA as a wholly separate entity from Ausra. It makes no allegations against Ausra.
Lindsay alleges that Areva Solar CA was formerly known as Ausra CA I, LLC. (Third-Party Compl. ¶ 7.) There is no evidence or allegation, however, indicating that Ausra CA I, LLC is the same entity as Ausra, Inc.
Areva Solar CA's arguments are not well-taken for the basic reason that there is nothing properly before the court- either allegations or evidence-to suggest that Areva Solar CA is the subrogor of plaintiff and plaintiff is its subrogee. Likewise, there is nothing to suggest that Areva Solar CA is the same entity as Ausra. As the above summary of plaintiff's allegations shows, plaintiff alleges only that it issued a policy of insurance to Ausra. (See id. ¶ 7.) It does not allege that it issued a policy to Areva Solar CA or transferred the Ausra policy Ausra to Areva Solar CA. Nor does it allege that Ausra and Areva Solar CA are actually the same entity.
Nor has Areva Solar CA presented any evidence outside of the Complaint that the court may properly consider on a motion to dismiss to show a subrogation relationship or to show that it is the same entity as Ausra. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that on a motion to dismiss, the court usually may not consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the motion into one for summary judgment).
In the absence of any allegations or evidence of a subrogation relationship between Areva Solar CA and plaintiff, Lindsay has alleged sufficient facts to support a "possible scenario under which" Areva Solar CA could be liable to Lindsay for its alleged liability to plaintiff. (Mem. in Supp. at 5:2-6.) To prove a cause of action for negligence, plaintiff must show "(1) a legal duty to use reasonable care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate cause between the breach and (4) the plaintiff's injury." Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles, 66 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339 (2d Dist. 1998).
In the TPC, Lindsay alleges that Areva Solar CA not only owned and operated the SSG array, but also that it negligently "supervised the construction, installation and erection" of the SSG array and its component parts, including the A-Frame supports. (Third-Party Compl. ("TPC") ¶¶ 17, 23 (Docket No. 21).) It further alleges that Areva Solar CA knew or should have known that the inadequately designed components of the SSG array would place stress loads on the A-Frame supports during the erection process that resulted in damage to the SSG array, the A-Frame support towers, and related components. (Id. ¶ 21.) Likewise, it alleges that Areva Solar CA knew or should have known that the A-Frame supports were constructed and installed without adequate guying or cabling, resulting in the damage claimed by plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 22.)
Lindsay then alleges that Areva Solar CA owed it a duty to "use ordinary and reasonable care to design, inspect, analyze, construct, erect, manage, supervise, operate and/or control" the SSG array and its component parts, including the A-Frame supports, without causing damage to those parts. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 35.) It further alleges breach, causation, and damages. (See id. ¶¶ 25-30, 36.) Thus, Lindsay has set forth a claim for negligence against Areva Solar CA. This claim is a plausible means of holding Areva Solar CA liable for Lindsay's alleged liability to plaintiff.
Areva Solar CA did not specifically challenge the sufficiency of Lindsay's allegations for its claims for indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief.
Assuming that Lindsay would need to allege facts to show the absence of a subrogation relationship had plaintiff alleged such a relationship, no such relationship is alleged in the Complaint. As explained above, the Complaint is bereft of any allegations against Areva Solar CA. That corporation is actually never mentioned. Further, there are no allegations or evidence before the court indicating that Areva Solar CA is the same entity as Ausra, such that the subrogation relationship between plaintiff and Ausra alleged in the Complaint would show Areva Solar CA to be in a subrogation relationship with plaintiff as well.
Lindsay alleges in the TPC that Areva Solar CA did not receive any payments from plaintiff for any claimed and disputed damages incurred by plaintiff, that plaintiff is not the subrogee of Areva Solar CA, and that Areva Solar CA is not the subrogor of plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32). Areva Solar CA is correct in its contention that the court need not accept as true a complaint's legal conclusions. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. But even if the court does not consider Lindsay's allegations that plaintiff and Areva Solar CA do not have a subrogation relationship, as already explained, Lindsay has properly alleged a claim against Areva Solar CA. There is no requirement that a third-party plaintiff first establish the absence of a subrogation relationship between the third-party defendants and the plaintiff to bring its third-party claims.
Because plaintiff neither alleged that Ausra and Areva Solar CA are one in the same or that it has a subrogation relationship with Areva Solar CA, nor provided the court with any evidence that it may properly consider on a motion to dismiss of either, Lindsay need not aver additional allegations to plead around the abstract possibility that plaintiff is also the subrogee of Areva Solar CA. Accordingly, Areva Solar CA's motion to dismiss Lindsay's claims against it must be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Areva Solar CA's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint be, and the same hereby, is DENIED.