FRCP can suck it...

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
kristinmarieUA
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:57 pm

FRCP can suck it...

Postby kristinmarieUA » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:32 pm

Let's see if you kids can help me with a quick question...

What is the difference between Rule 13(h) & Rule 14. If 13(h) authorizes the use of Rule 20 & 19 to add parties, does that mean the party already has to be in the suit to join them? Or is it just another form of impleader?


If anyone has any brilliant ideas, I would love your insight (*cough* gunners *cough*).
Thanks y'all

User avatar
vertex
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: FRCP can suck it...

Postby vertex » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:53 pm

kristinmarieUA wrote:Let's see if you kids can help me with a quick question...

What is the difference between Rule 13(h) & Rule 14. If 13(h) authorizes the use of Rule 20 & 19 to add parties, does that mean the party already has to be in the suit to join them? Or is it just another form of impleader?


Rule 13(h) is how you bring someone new into the suit when you are crossclaiming or counterclaiming. This is a little nuanced so let me say it another way. If you are counterclaiming, D is lodging a claim against P, right? In that case, D can use 13(h) to lodge his claim against P and a new person joined by 13(h). That is to say, 13(h) is only ever used if D is going to claim against two or more people, at least one of which is already in the suit and at least one of which is not in the suit. Does that make sense?

Rule 14 is how you bring someone new into the suit when you're initiating a claim against somebody who isn't already involved in the suit at all. This isn't 13(h) since you're not crossclaiming against any co-defendants, and you're not counterclaiming against the plaintiff.

I can see how they're kind of similar, but they are used in totally different situations. This makes a practical difference since impleader has the different standard of "may be liable to the defendant for some or all of her liability to the plaintiff" whereas 13(h) joinder of a party only has to be out of the same transaction or occurrence.

User avatar
kristinmarieUA
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:57 pm

Re: FRCP can suck it...

Postby kristinmarieUA » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:00 pm

That makes perfect sense! Thank you!!

User avatar
jwaters
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: FRCP can suck it...

Postby jwaters » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:18 pm

Also, Rule 14 is only used to add a party which could be liable to the D in the event that D is liable to P. A common example would be a D impleading their insurance provider in the event they are held liable for crashing into P. It isn't to bring any new party into a suit for any reason, it can only be used in this particular instance.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest