Pt (Persero) Merpati Nusantara Airlines v. Hume & Associates Pc ( 2009 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PT (PERSERO) MERP A TI )
AIRLINES )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civ. Case No. 07-1701 (RJL)
)
HUME & ASSOCS., PC, et al., )
)
Defendants.
C-
MEMORANDUM ORDER
(June ~, 2009) [#35 and #36]
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants Hume, Hume & Associates, and Cooper, on
September 24, 2007. In response, defendant Hume ("cross plaintiff') filed a crosscIaim
against Hume & Associates and Cooper ("cross defendants") on March 4,2008. The
crosscIaim seeks indemnification, including attorney's fees and costs, should plaintiff be
awarded a judgment. Crossclaim ~ 14. Plaintiff was never awarded a judgment because,
on February 4,2009, plaintiffs case was dismissed without prejudice for want of
prosecution. Subsequently, Hume filed a Motion for Default Judgment on Crossclaim
[Dkt. # 35] on February 5, 2009, and cross defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Hume's
Crossclaim [Dkt. # 36] on February 9,2009.
Because the plaintiffs case has been dismissed, Hume's crosscIaim for
indemnification and attorney's fees is DISMISSED as moot. See, e.g., Threshermen's
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wallingford Mut. Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 776, 780 (7th Cir. 1994) (dismissing as
moot a cross plaintiffs crossclaim against a cross defendant once the plaintiffs claim
against cross plaintiff was dismissed); McGrath v. Poppleton, 550 F.Supp.2d 564, 570
n.10 (D. N.J. 2008) (noting that a cross plaintiffs crossclaims "obviously became moot"
when claims against the cross plaintiff were dismissed); Inside Scoop, Inc v. Curry, 755
F.Supp. 426, 434 (D.D.C. 1989) (dismissing as moot a cross plaintiffs crossclaim once
judgment was entered in favor of cross plaintiff). Indeed, the one case Hume cites to
support his continued pursuit of attorney's fees, despite dismissal of plaintiff s underlying
claim, is not applicable because it addresses interpretation of a particular contractual
indemnification provision not at issue here. United States v. GTS Admiral William
Callaghan, 643 F.Supp. 1483 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
Thus, for the forgoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant/cross plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment on
Crossclaim [Dkt. #35] is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Crossclaim of Robert T. Hume [Dkt. #36]
is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
-2-