Flodin v. Central Garden & Pet Company

Background

Plaintiffs Aaron Brand and John Flodin filed a putative class action against Central Garden & Pet Company and Breeder’s Choice Pet Foods. The lawsuit concerns allegedly misleading representations about AvoDerm dog and cat food, including statements that some products were made only with the flesh or oil of California avocados.

Defendants asked for permission to file a third-party complaint against Elements LLC, one of their suppliers. Defendants alleged that Elements supplied avocado powder and oil while representing that the ingredients were made with California-grown avocados. The proposed complaint alleges that Elements knew its suppliers, Adams Vegetable Oils, Inc., and Charkit Chemicals Company, were using avocados grown in other countries. Defendants sought indemnification, meaning payment for any liability or losses for which Elements might be responsible.

Plaintiffs argued that defendants already had information suggesting problems with the avocado sourcing before receiving discovery from third parties. The court agreed that the motion was untimely, noting that defendants waited three months after receiving discovery from Adams and that 2020 emails showed defendants had earlier concerns about Elements’ representations.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 allows a defendant to bring a nonparty into the case when that nonparty may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim. Because defendants sought to do this more than 14 days after serving their answers, they needed the court’s permission. Courts consider factors including prejudice to the original plaintiff, added complexity at trial, possible delay, and the timeliness of the request.

Court’s ruling

The court held that the proposed third-party complaint was proper because defendants claimed that Elements owed them derivative liability for part of the claims brought by plaintiffs. Although the request was untimely, the court found that the other factors favored granting permission. No trial date or discovery deadline had been set, some discovery concerning the third-party claims had already occurred, and the court could separate the third-party issues for trial if necessary. The court concluded that adding Elements would promote efficiency without delaying trial, unnecessarily complicating the issues, or otherwise prejudicing plaintiffs.

The court granted defendants’ motion for leave to file a third-party complaint. It ordered defendants to file the complaint within seven days of the order and complete service within 35 days. The order did not decide whether Elements is ultimately liable or whether plaintiffs’ claims against the original defendants will succeed.