Diaz-Lebel v. TD Bank USA, N.A.
- Becky Thorson
- 0:17-cv-05110
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Diaz-Lebel v. TD Bank, Judge Thorson denied defendants’ motion to add Lineta E. Fanaras as a third-party defendant.
TD Bank USA, N.A. and Target Corporation could not add Lineta E. Fanaras to this case, while Sara Diaz-Lebel and potential class members avoided the proposed additional claims and related delay.
What happened
Diaz-Lebel v. TD Bank USA, N.A. is a proposed class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. TD Bank USA, N.A. and Target Corporation wanted to add Lineta E. Fanaras because she had provided the telephone number that they called.
The court denied the motion. It found that adding Fanaras near the discovery deadline and shortly before class-certification motions were due could delay and complicate the case and unfairly prejudice the plaintiff and potential class members. The defendants could instead sue Fanaras in a separate case.
Judge Becky R. Thorson also noted concerns about whether Minnesota courts could exercise authority over Fanaras, but the order denied the motion based on undue delay and unfair prejudice.
The detailed version
- Diaz-Lebel v. TD Bank USA, N.A. · No. 0:17-cv-05110
- Becky Thorson
- Aug. 30, 2018
Background
Sara Diaz-Lebel brought this proposed class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against TD Bank USA, N.A. and Target Corporation. The defendants asked for permission to add Lineta E. Fanaras as a third-party defendant. They said Fanaras had provided, in a Target credit-card application, the telephone number that the defendants called in connection with the case. The defendants sought indemnity or contribution, meaning that they wanted Fanaras to be responsible for all or part of any liability they might face.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1) allows a defending party to bring in a nonparty who may be liable for all or part of the claim against the defending party. The court has discretion to decide whether to allow that addition. The court also considered factors used for requests to amend pleadings under Rule 15, including undue delay, bad faith, futility, and unfair prejudice.
Court’s reasoning
The court noted that the discovery deadline expired on the date of the order and that motions for class certification were due on September 27, 2018. Adding a third party so the defendants could pursue claims unrelated to those of the proposed class members could unnecessarily delay and complicate the case. The defendants had also been unable to serve Fanaras with a discovery subpoena, which further indicated a risk of delay.
The court determined that the defendants would not be unfairly harmed because they remained free to sue Fanaras in a separate action. In a footnote, the court also expressed doubt that requiring Fanaras to defend in Minnesota would satisfy due process, and noted that the defendants conceded that a doctrine allowing related claims to support personal jurisdiction did not apply. The court did not base its order on that issue.
Disposition
Judge Becky R. Thorson denied the defendants’ Motion to Join Third-Party Defendant. The stated grounds were undue delay and unfair prejudice to Diaz-Lebel and potential class members.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.