Colson v. Maghami, et al, No. 2:2008cv02150 - Document 122 (D. Ariz. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER denying as moot 93 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying 108 Motion for Leave to File; granting 110 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 7/29/09.(KSP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Colson v. Maghami, et al 1 Doc. 122 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) J a v a d M a g h a m i a / k / a J a v a d) Ghaemmaghami Marie Debernardi) Ghaemmaghami, Javad and Marie) Maghami d/b/a Scottsdale Lamborghini) and/or Scottsdale Motorsports;) Lamborghini of Scottsdale LLC, an) Arizona limited liability company; Motor) Sports Of Scottsdale, Inc., Motorsports of) Scottsdale No. 2, LLC, and Automobili) Lamborghini America, LLC, a Delaware) ) Corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) Automobili Lamborghini Holding S.p.A.,) Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., and) Automobili Lamborghini America, LLC, ) ) Crossclaimants, ) ) v. ) ) Motorsports of Scottsdale, Inc., d/b/a) Lamborghini America Scottsdale,) Lamborghini of Scottsdale, LLC, Motor) Sports of Scottsdale No. 2, LLC, Javad) Maghami a/k/a Javad Ghaemmaghami,) and Marie Maghami a/k/a Marie) Ghammaghami, ) ) Crossdefendants. ) ) Burton Colson, No. CV08-2150-PHX-MHM ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 1 Currently pending before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File Verified Crossclaim 2 filed by Motor Sports of Scottsdale, Inc. (Dkt.#108); a First Motion to Amend/Correct 3 Complaint filed by Barton Colson (Dkt.#110); and a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why 4 Crossdefendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt filed by Automobili Lamborghini 5 America, LLC, Automobili Lamborghini Holdings S.p.A., and Automobili Lamborghini 6 S.p.A.(Dkt.#93). Having considered these motions and their accompanying papers, the Court 7 issues the following Order. 8 I. Motion for Leave to File Verified Crossclaim 9 A. Relevant Procedural history 10 This case began as a relatively simple claim by Barton Colson (“Colson”) for the 11 recovery of a deposit of nearly $1.4 million he paid to secure the delivery of a Lamborghini 12 Reventon vehicle. When it became clear that no delivery would ever occur, Colson sued the 13 dealership (Motorsports of Scottsdale or Scottsdale Motorsports), the dealer and his wife in 14 their individual capacities (Javad and Marie Maghami), and the manufacturer (Automobili 15 Lamborghini America, LLC) for eleven counts sounding in tort and contract relating to 16 defendants’ failure to deliver the car, misrepresentations, fraud, and failure to supervise its 17 employees and dealers. 18 On January 22, 2009, the Lamborghini defendants (Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 19 Automobili Lamborghini Holding, S.p.A. and Automobili Lamborghini America, LLC) filed 20 a verified cross-claim.1 (Dkt.#53) This cross claim alleged that despite being terminated as 21 a Lamborghini dealer and service provider, Motorsports continued to hold itself out as an 22 authorized Lamborghini dealer and continued to operate a parts and service department as 23 an authorized service provider for Lamborghini automobiles. The cross claim alleged unfair 24 competition and trademark infringement as well as breach of post-termination obligations 25 under the dealer agreement against Motorsports. It further alleged that Motorsports 26 27 28 1 The Lamborghini defendants never filed a motion seeking leave to file their crossclaim; however, as explained below, cross claims are always permissive under Rule 13(g). -2- 1 wrongfully retained a Lamborghini automobile that was worth approximately $240,000.2 2 Finally, the cross claim sought indemnification from Motorsports for the losses it might 3 sustain in connection with Motorsports’ conversion of the purchase price of a Lamborghini 4 from Colson (Count VII). (Dkt.#53 at ¶¶ 99-104 and ¶ X at page 27) 5 In response, on June 12, 2009, Motorsports of Scottsdale filed a Motion for Leave to 6 File Verified Crossclaim against the Lamborghini Defendants/Crossclaimants. (Dkt.#108) 7 Motorsports alleges that the Lamborghini entities unreasonably withheld consent to sell 8 Motorsports to VNHS Properties (an entity that is not a party to this action) and violated the 9 Dealership Agreement by failing to consider VNHS’s application in good faith. Based on 10 these charges, Motorsports alleges a breach of contract claim and a violation of A.R.S. § 28- 11 4457(A)(1) against the Lamborghini defendants. Motorsports further asserts that the 12 Lamborghini entities wrongfully drew against Motorsports’ $1.5 million line of credit with 13 Wells Fargo Bank, breaching the Dealer Agreement, causing Motorsports to lose its line of 14 credit with Wells Fargo, and causing significant damage to Motorsports. (Dkt.#108-2 at 3) 15 B. Relevant Rules 16 Motorsports seeks leave to file the verified cross claim summarized in the previous 17 paragraph. Under Rule 13(g), cross claims are always permissive. The full text of Rule 18 13(g) is as follows: A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant. 19 20 21 22 23 (Emphasis added.) Cross claims must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the 24 original action, or relate to the same property that is in dispute in the original action. See, 25 e.g., State of Cal. v. Kleppe, 604 F.2d 1187, 1192 n.6 (9th Cir. 1979); 6 Charles Alan Wright 26 27 28 2 This automobile is not the same Lamborghini Reventon that Plaintiff originally sought to purchase. -3- 1 & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1431 (noting that “only claims related 2 to the subject matter of the original action, or to property involved therein, are appropriate 3 as cross-claims against a coparty”). 4 Here, there are essentially three controversies at issue. Controversy A is Colson’s 5 attempt to regain the money he asserts that he paid for a Lamborghini Reventon. This is the 6 underlying lawsuit. 7 Motorsports of Scottsdale misappropriated the Lamborghini trademark after its dealership 8 agreement had been terminated. This is asserted as a cross-claim. Controversy C is 9 Motorsports’ argument that the Lamborghini defendants wrongfully withheld their approval 10 from Motorsports’ attempt to sell the dealership to a third party and that the Lamborghini 11 defendants wrongfully drew against the $1.5 million Wells Fargo line of credit. This is also 12 asserted as a cross-claim. While Controversy C is clearly related to Controversy B, neither 13 Controversy B nor Controversy C arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as 14 Controversy A. The original plaintiff (Colson) simply wants his deposit to be returned and 15 has no interest in the outcome of the franchisee-franchisor dispute between Motorsports and 16 the Lamborghini defendants. Moreover, Controversy B and Controversy C threaten to dwarf 17 Controversy A. See 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and 18 Procedure § 1431 (“[P]laintiff's suit could become unduly complicated and prejudice might 19 result to him if defendant is allowed to raise a claim against a codefendant in which the 20 original plaintiff has no interest.”). Controversy B is the Lamborghini defendants’ arguments that 21 Because the two cross-claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence 22 as the underlying lawsuit, they do not comport with Rule 13(g). As such, Motorsports’ 23 Motion for Leave to File Verified Crossclaim (Dkt.#108) is denied. Moreover, given that 24 the Lamborghini Defendants’ Crossclaim (Dkt.#53) is not sufficiently related to Plaintiff’s 25 underlying case, it should also be dismissed. It is therefore dismissed except for the narrow 26 portion of the cross claim that seeks indemnity from Motorsports for having to defend against 27 the action by Colson (specifically, Dkt.#53 at ¶¶ 99-104 and ¶ X at page 27). It should be 28 obvious that both the Lamborghini Crossclaim (Dkt.#53) and the Motorsports Crossclaim -4- 1 (Dkt.#108) are dismissed without prejudice to their subsequent assertion in an independent 2 lawsuit. 3 This ruling comports with Rule 21, which states that “[a]ny claim against a party may 4 be severed and proceeded with separately.” Courts have broad discretion regarding 5 severance under Rule 21. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1297 (9th 6 Cir.2000); Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1015 (7th Cir. 2000) (noting district 7 courts’ “broad discretion” under Rule 21; “[a]s long as there is a discrete and separate claim, 8 the district court may exercise its discretion and sever it”); Old Colony Ventures I, Inc. v. 9 SMWNPF Holdings, Inc., 918 F. Supp. 343 (D. Kan. 1996) (in employing Rule 21, court 10 should consider convenience of parties, avoidance of prejudice, and judicial efficiency). 11 The Court is mindful that the parties may separately wish to appeal the results of 12 Colson’s Reventon dispute and the franchisor-franchisee dispute between Motorsports and 13 Lamborghini. Therefore, it is explicitly choosing to proceed under Rule 21 rather than Rule 14 42(b). “When a claim is severed under Rule 21, it ceases to be part of the same suit.” Mathis 15 v. Bess, 761 F.Supp. 1023, 1026 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). By contrast, if an issue is separated under 16 Rule 42(b), it will be tried separately but remain part of the same lawsuit. The most 17 important result of this distinction is that severed proceedings under Rule 21 become final 18 as each proceeding goes to judgment, and may be appealed individually. Separate trials 19 under Rule 42(b), by contrast, are typically not ready for appeal until all claims and issues 20 are decided. Acevedo-Garcia v. Monroig, 351 F.3d 547, 559-60 (1st Cir. 2003) (explaining 21 that under Rule 21 a judgment entered is final and appealable without regard to whether other 22 severed portions of original case have proceeded to judgment; in contrast, under Rule 42(b) 23 separate trials do not usually become appealable until all of the trials have been decided). 24 Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1013 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Under Rule 21 . . . 25 severance creates two separate actions where previously there was but one”). 26 27 28 -5- 1 II. First Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint 2 Plaintiff Colson moves the Court for leave to file his First Amended Complaint to 3 include a failure to warn claim against Automobili Lamborghini America, LLP. (Dkt.#110) 4 This motion is unopposed. 5 Leave to file an amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) “shall be freely given 6 when justice so requires” and this policy “‘is to be applied with extreme liberality.’” Owens 7 v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)(quoting Morongo Band 8 of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). Inferences should be 9 drawn “in favor of granting the motion” to amend. Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc., 10 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 11 Colson explained that his delay in bringing the additional claim was due to the fact 12 that he discovered it only after discovery began. Because of this, it appears that the proposed 13 amendment is in good faith, that he has not delayed in seeking to amend, that granting leave 14 to amend will not prejudice Lamborghini America, and that the proposed amendment will 15 not be futile. Finding his motion unopposed, the authorities cited therein persuasive, and 16 given the liberal standards permitting amendment, the Court will grant this motion. 17 III. Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Crossdefendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt 18 The Lamborghini defendants filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why 19 Crossdefendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt. This motion related to their cross-claim 20 against Motorsports regarding trademark infringement. (Dkt.#93) Given that this cross21 claim has been dismissed from this action as explained above, this motion is now moot. 22 Accordingly, 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Motorsports’ Motion for Leave to File Verified 24 Crossclaim (Dkt.#108). 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice the Lamborghini 26 Defendants’ Crossclaim (Dkt.#53) except for the narrow portion of the cross claim that seeks 27 28 -6- 1 indemnity from Motorsports for having to defend against the action by Colson (specifically, 2 Dkt.#53 at ¶¶ 99-104 and ¶ X at page 27). 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend 4 (Dkt.#110) is granted. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date 5 of this Order. 6 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot the motion for Order to Show Cause Why Crossdefendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt. (Dkt.#93) 8 The parties are reminded that the deadlines contained in the Court’s Case 9 Management Order dated April 16, 2009 (Dkt.#102) will continue to apply and will be 10 11 strictly enforced. DATED this 29th day of July, 2009. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
