Opinion
2:22-cv-01466-KJM-JDP
01-05-2023
Liqui-Box Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Plastic Systems, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Liqui-Box Corporation brings this contribution and indemnity action against defendant Advanced Plastic Systems, Inc. (APS) over potential prospective liability stemming from a different case pending in a different federal district court. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. APS moves the court to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Mot., ECF No. 7. In advance of the motion hearing, the court orders the parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Liqui-Box manufactures aseptic liquid packaging products, which are filled through a plastic fitment produced by APS. Compl. ¶ 6. It sold some of those products to Tree Top, Inc. Id. Tree Top and Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's are suing Liqui-Box in the Eastern District of Washington for allegedly sustained damages due to defects in the plastic fitments. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. In turn, Liqui-Box filed this lawsuit against APS for contribution and common law equitable indemnity. Id. ¶ 8.
Because Liqui-Box's lawsuit against APS hinges on the uncertain outcome of Tree Top's lawsuit, it appears unripe. See Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (“A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The doctrine of ripeness draws from constitutional and prudential constraints on judicial power and may be raised by a court sua sponte. Nat'l Park Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003). “[A]s a prudential matter, courts often find claims for indemnification or contribution are not ripe because the claims are contingent upon the outcome of ongoing underlying litigation.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Am. Reliable Ins. Co., No. 16-0871, 2017 WL 1153041, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017) (collecting cases) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The parties are directed to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by filing any briefing on the question, limited to 10 pages per party, by January 20, 2023, at 12:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.