Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Impleader: Claims question  (Read 484 times)

dubsy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
    • View Profile
Impleader: Claims question
« on: December 11, 2008, 10:05:03 PM »
If a third party defendant is impleaded into an action - can that third party defendant assert claims that do NOT arise out of the same transaction/occurrence against either the plaintiff or defendant?  I only see that Rule 14(a)(2)(D)and 14(a)(3) allow the plaintiff and third party defendant to assert claims against each other that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.  But technically under Rule 18 anyone is allowed to join as many claims of whatever nature as long as they have some kind of claim going on, right?
seeing king midas everywhere.

Changed Name

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
    • View Profile
Re: Impleader: Claims question
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2008, 11:31:29 PM »
If the third party defendant is impleaded properly, then he/she can counter-claim against the third party plaintiff with anything he/she wants.

If the third party defendant wants to claim against the plaintiff for a claim that does not arise of the same transaction or occurrence, he/she can do so under Rule 18 ONLY IF he/she has asserted a claim against the plaintiff that arose out of the same T/O.

Put another way:  the third party D must assert a claim that arose out of the same T/O against P before he can use the permissive claim joinder under Rule 18 (because, as you said, that's when they will be properly joined).

UFBoldAsLove

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1545
  • Go Gators.
    • View Profile
Re: Impleader: Claims question
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2008, 01:06:00 AM »
If a third party defendant is impleaded into an action - can that third party defendant assert claims that do NOT arise out of the same transaction/occurrence against either the plaintiff or defendant?  I only see that Rule 14(a)(2)(D)and 14(a)(3) allow the plaintiff and third party defendant to assert claims against each other that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.  But technically under Rule 18 anyone is allowed to join as many claims of whatever nature as long as they have some kind of claim going on, right?

Yes. Once there is a proper impleader claim (derivative liability) the third party plaintiff may bring any other claim they have against the third party defendant, under Rule 18(a).

However, remember that there must be an independent basis of SMJ in order for the court to hear the claim. If it is not transactionally related - then there cannot be supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, there must be diversity or federal question jurisdiction over the unrelated claim.
Vandy 1L... really?