Impleader question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
SKlei
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:01 pm

Impleader question

Postby SKlei » Wed May 16, 2012 7:14 pm

I'm a little confused how come in Rule 14(A)(3) allows a plaintiff's claim against a third-party defendant, but under 1367 it will not allow a plaintiff to make a claim against a party made under rule 14?

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Impleader question

Postby 3|ink » Wed May 16, 2012 9:53 pm

SKlei wrote:I'm a little confused how come in Rule 14(A)(3) allows a plaintiff's claim against a third-party defendant, but under 1367 it will not allow a plaintiff to make a claim against a party made under rule 14?

Read the end of 1367(b). It's only when that would destroy diversity.

User avatar
Judge Philip Banks
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: Impleader question

Postby Judge Philip Banks » Wed May 16, 2012 9:54 pm

SKlei wrote:I'm a little confused how come in Rule 14(A)(3) allows a plaintiff's claim against a third-party defendant, but under 1367 it will not allow a plaintiff to make a claim against a party made under rule 14?

It doesn't allow supplemental jx in that situation IF ALLOWING IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH 1332 (i.e., ruins diversity). Everyone forgets about that last sentence of 1367(b). So, for example, if plaintiff asserts a 1331 claim against the third party defendant, that is fine.

edit: 3|ink got it.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests