Liqui-Box Corp. v. Advanced Plastic Systems, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Liqui-Box Corporation, No. 2:22-cv-01466-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Advanced Plastic Systems, Inc., 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Liqui-Box Corporation brings this contribution and indemnity action against 18 | defendant Advanced Plastic Systems, Inc. (APS) over potential prospective liability stemming 19 | from a different case pending in a different federal district court. See generally Compl., ECF 20 | No. 1. APS moves the court to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Mot., ECF 21 | No.7. In advance of the motion hearing, the court orders the parties to show cause why this 22 | case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Liqui-Box manufactures aseptic liquid packaging products, which are filled through a 24 | plastic fitment produced by APS. Compl. § 6. It sold some of those products to Tree Top, Inc. 25 | Jd. Tree Top and Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s are suing Liqui-Box in the Eastern 26 | District of Washington for allegedly sustained damages due to defects in the plastic fitments. /d. 27 | 9945. In turn, Liqui-Box filed this lawsuit against APS for contribution and common law 28 | equitable indemnity. /d. ¥ 8. 1 Because Liqui-Box’s lawsuit against APS hinges on the uncertain outcome of Tree Top’s 2 lawsuit, it appears unripe. See Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (“A claim is not 3 ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or 4 indeed may not occur at all.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The doctrine of ripeness draws 5 from constitutional and prudential constraints on judicial power and may be raised by a court sua 6 sponte. Nat’l Park Hosp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003). “[A]s a prudential 7 matter, courts often find claims for indemnification or contribution are not ripe because the claims 8 are contingent upon the outcome of ongoing underlying litigation.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Am. 9 Reliable Ins. Co., No. 16-0871, 2017 WL 1153041, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017) (collecting 10 cases) (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 The parties are directed to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of 12 subject matter jurisdiction by filing any briefing on the question, limited to 10 pages per 13 party, by January 20, 2023, at 12:00 p.m. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: January 5, 2023.