Case Law Wada v. Aloha King, LLC

Wada v. Aloha King, LLC

Document Cited Authorities (37) Cited in (16) Related

Andrew D. Stewart, Showa Law Office, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs.

Matt A. Tsukazaki, Phillip A. Li, Li & Tsukazaki, J. Patrick Gallagher, Gallagher Kane Amai, Trish K. Morikawa, Office Of The United States Attorney, Michiro Iwanaga, Sakai Iwanaga Sutton Law Group, Anne T. Horiuchi, Barbara A. Petrus, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLP, Honolulu, HI, Laura J. Maechtlen, Selyn Hong, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, San Francisco, CA, Pamela Q. Devata, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant/Cross-Claimant/ Cross-Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ABSO AND STERLINGBACKCHECK'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED JULY 21, 2015 (ECF No. 99) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

and

GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, CROSS-DEFENDANTS ABSO AND STERLINGBACKCHECK'S MOTION TO DISMISS TOTAL STORAGE SOLUTIONS' CROSSCLAIMS FILED ON AUGUST 7, 2015 (ECF No. 100) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

and

DENYING CROSS-DEFENDANTS ABSO AND STERLINGBACKCHECK'S MOTION TO DISMISS TNT SELF STORAGE MANAGEMENT, INC.'S CROSSCLAIMS FILED ON AUGUST 10, 2015 (ECF No. 101)

and

DENYING CROSS-DEFENDANTS ABSO AND STERLINGBACKCHECK'S MOTION TO DISMISS ALOHA KING, LLC'S CROSSCLAIMS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 (ECF No. 120)

Helen Gillmor United States District Judge

Plaintiff Masahiro Wada claims that in 2009 he rented a storage unit at a Honolulu storage facility owned by Defendant

Aloha King, LLC. Plaintiff Masahiro Wada alleges that his fifteen year-old daughter, Plaintiff Maho Wada, was sexually assaulted by Dale McShane, the manager of Defendant Aloha King, LLC's storage facility.

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant TNT Self Storage Management, Inc. managed the storage facility for Defendant Aloha King, LLC, and contracted with Defendant Total Storage Solutions for the facility's personnel and staffing matters.

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Total Storage Solutions contracted for Defendant Abso to conduct a background check on Dale McShane, but Defendant Abso did not disclose that McShane had a criminal record and was a registered sex offender.

Plaintiffs' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 73), naming the following Defendants:

(1) Defendant Aloha King, LLC, as the owner of the storage facility, (“Aloha King ”);
(2) Defendant TNT Self-Storage Management, Inc., as the manager/operator of the storage facility, (“TNT Management ”);
(3) Defendant Total Storage Solutions, as the personnel and staffing agent for the storage facility, (“TSS Staffing Agent ”);
(4) Defendant Abso, as acquired by Defendant SterlingBackcheck, as the contractor who performed the background check on Dale McShane, (Abso” or “Abso/SterlingBackcheck ”).
CROSSCLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS ABSO/STERLINGBACKCHECK

There are three separate Crossclaims filed against Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck.

1. TSS Staffing Agent's Crossclaim (ECF No. 87)

Cross-Claimant TSS Staffing Agent filed a Crossclaim against Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck with the following causes of action:

Count I: Breach of Contract against Defendant Abso
Count II: Negligence against Defendant Abso
Count III: Indemnification and Contribution against Defendant Abso
Count IV: Indemnification and Contribution against Defendant SterlingBackcheck

(Cross-Claimant TSS Staffing Agent's Crossclaim, ECF No. 87).

2. TNT Management's Crossclaim (ECF No. 89-1)

Cross-Claimant TNT Management filed a Crossclaim against Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck for contribution and indemnification. (Defendant TNT Management's Crossclaim, ECF No. 89-1).

3. Aloha King's Crossclaim (ECF No. 109-1)

Cross-Claimant Aloha King has also filed a Crossclaim against Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck for contribution and indemnification. (Defendant Aloha King's Crossclaim, ECF No. 109-1).

FOUR MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

Defendants/Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck have filed the following four Motions before the Court:

1. Defendants Abso/STERLINGBACKCHECK'S Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 99)

Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck have filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs. Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck assert in their Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck argue that, even if the claims are not preempted, Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and Plaintiffs have not otherwise stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Defendants Abso/STERLINGBACKCHECK'S Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 99) is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND .

2. Cross-Defendants Abso/STERLINGBACKCHECK'S Motion to Dismiss TSS Staffing Agent's Crossclaim (ECF No. 100)

Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck assert in their Motion that Cross-Claimant TSS Staffing Agent's claims for breach of contract, negligence, indemnification, and contribution are preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck assert that the allegations in TSS Staffing Agent's Crossclaim do not state a claim pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck argue that, even if the claims are not preempted, TSS Staffing Agent has not provided sufficient allegations to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck also assert that TSS Staffing Agent's claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck also argue that TSS Staffing Agent's tort claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine.

Cross-Defendants Abso/STERLINGBACKCHECK'S Motion to Dismiss the Crossclaims filed by Cross-Claimant TSS Staffing Agent (ECF No. 100) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND .

3. Cross-Defendants Abso/STERLINGBACKCHECK'S Motion to Dismiss the Crossclaim filed by TNT Management (ECF No. 101)

Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck filed a Motion to Dismiss TNT Management's Crossclaim for indemnification and contribution. Cross-Defendants argue that TNT Management's Crossclaim does not contain sufficient facts to state a claim. They also argue that TNT Management's claims are barred by the economic loss rule.

Cross-Defendants Abso/STERLINGBACKCHECK'S Motion to Dismiss the Crossclaims filed by Cross-Claimants TNT Management (ECF No. 101) is DENIED .

4. Cross-Defendants Abso/STERLINGBACKCHECK'S Motion to Dismiss the Crossclaims filed by Aloha King (ECF No. 120)

Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck filed a Motion to Dismiss Aloha King's Crossclaim for indemnification and contribution. Cross-Defendants argue there are insufficient allegations in the Crossclaim to state a claim for either indemnification or contribution.

Cross-Defendants Abso/STERLINGBACKCHECK'S Motion to Dismiss Crossclaim filed by Aloha King (ECF No. 120) is DENIED .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 17, 2014, Plaintiffs Maho and Masahiro Wada filed a Complaint against Defendants Aloha King, LLC (“Aloha King ”); Aloha Island-King, LLC; Total Storage Solutions (“TSS Staffing Agent ”); TNT Self Storage Management, Inc. (“TNT Management ”), and Doe Defendants 1-20. (ECF No. 1).

On September 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice as to Defendant Aloha-Island King, LLC. (ECF No. 16).

On March 17, 2015, Defendant TNT Management filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint. (ECF No. 49).

On May 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Granting Defendant TNT Management's Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint. (ECF No. 55).

On May 26, 2015, TNT Management, as a Third-Party Plaintiff, filed a Third-Party Complaint against Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck (Abso or “Abso/SterlingBackcheck ”). (ECF No. 56).

On July 6, 2015, the Magistrate Judge approved a Stipulation among Plaintiffs and Defendants to permit Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 62).

On July 21, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, adding Abso/SterlingBackcheck as Defendants. (ECF No. 73).

On August 7, 2015, Cross-Claimant TSS Staffing Agent filed a Crossclaim against Cross-Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck. (ECF No. 87).

On August 10, 2015, Cross-Claimant TNT Management filed a Crossclaim against Cross-Defendants Aloha King and Abso/SterlingBackcheck. (ECF No. 89).

On September 4, 2015, Third-Party Plaintiff TNT Management filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice of its Third-Party Complaint against Third-Party Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck. (ECF No. 98).

On September 8, 2015, Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 99).

On the same date, Abso/SterlingBackcheck, as Cross-Defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claimant TSS Staffing Agent's Crossclaims Filed August 7, 2015. (ECF No. 100).

They also filed Cross-Defendants Abso/STERLINGBACKCHECK'S Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claimant TNT Management's Crossclaims Filed August 10, 2015. (ECF No. 101).

On September 16, 2015, Cross-Claimant Aloha King filed Crossclaims against Defendants Abso/SterlingBackcheck, Cross-Defendant TNT Management, and Cross-Defendant TSS Staffing Agent. (ECF No. 109).

On September 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2018
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Columbus Downtown Dev. Corp.
"...375 (9th Cir. 1955) ("[A] pleading of payment was not required because of the provisions in Rules 13 and 14."); Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F.Supp.3d 981, 1003 (D. Haw. 2015) (Rule 13(g)"does not require that the indemnification or contribution claims be mature at the time of pleading"); R..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii – 2021
Bennett v. Poipu Resort Partners, L.P.
"...personal injury claims asserted by Bennett, and Bennett's claims are not exclusively for economic loss. See Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F. Supp. 3d 981, 1004 (D. Haw. 2015). The Owners do not appear to seek to recover from any "other property," that is, property other than the Bombay tiles..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2021
Garot v. Cnty. of San Diego
"...Rule 13(g), a cross-claim for indemnification or contribution need not be mature at the time of pleading. See Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F. Supp. 3d 981, 1003 (D. Haw. 2015); U.S. Bank, N.A. for Certificateholders of LXS 2007-16N Tr. v. Mar-A-Lago Homeowners Ass'n, No. 216CV00565GMNNJK, 2..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii – 2021
Lobisch v. United States
"...have known that Villa and her unauthorized childcare facilityposed a risk to the children placed in her care. Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F.Supp.3d 981, 997 (D. Haw. 2015) (finding a special relationship existed for a company that conducted background checks of employees for a storage faci..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2019
Keyes Law Firm, LLC v. Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP
"...arising from one set of facts." Providential Dev. Co. v. U.S. Steel Co., 236 F.2d 277, 281 (10th Cir. 1956); Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F. Supp. 3d 981, 1003 (D. Haw. 2015); Favors v. Cuomo, 881 F. Supp. 2d 356, 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2012); Balerna v. Gilberti, 266 F.R.D. 42, 45 (D. Mass 2010). R..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2018
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Columbus Downtown Dev. Corp.
"...375 (9th Cir. 1955) ("[A] pleading of payment was not required because of the provisions in Rules 13 and 14."); Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F.Supp.3d 981, 1003 (D. Haw. 2015) (Rule 13(g)"does not require that the indemnification or contribution claims be mature at the time of pleading"); R..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii – 2021
Bennett v. Poipu Resort Partners, L.P.
"...personal injury claims asserted by Bennett, and Bennett's claims are not exclusively for economic loss. See Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F. Supp. 3d 981, 1004 (D. Haw. 2015). The Owners do not appear to seek to recover from any "other property," that is, property other than the Bombay tiles..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2021
Garot v. Cnty. of San Diego
"...Rule 13(g), a cross-claim for indemnification or contribution need not be mature at the time of pleading. See Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F. Supp. 3d 981, 1003 (D. Haw. 2015); U.S. Bank, N.A. for Certificateholders of LXS 2007-16N Tr. v. Mar-A-Lago Homeowners Ass'n, No. 216CV00565GMNNJK, 2..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii – 2021
Lobisch v. United States
"...have known that Villa and her unauthorized childcare facilityposed a risk to the children placed in her care. Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F.Supp.3d 981, 997 (D. Haw. 2015) (finding a special relationship existed for a company that conducted background checks of employees for a storage faci..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2019
Keyes Law Firm, LLC v. Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP
"...arising from one set of facts." Providential Dev. Co. v. U.S. Steel Co., 236 F.2d 277, 281 (10th Cir. 1956); Wada v. Aloha King, LLC, 154 F. Supp. 3d 981, 1003 (D. Haw. 2015); Favors v. Cuomo, 881 F. Supp. 2d 356, 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2012); Balerna v. Gilberti, 266 F.R.D. 42, 45 (D. Mass 2010). R..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex