BelugaWhale wrote:So I'm taking Themis but gonna ask Barbri people here because Themis may be wrong. Civ pro question.
According to themis, a crossclaim asserted by 1 defendant against another must relate to the original claim that was asserted by the plaintiff against both defendants. So far so good. The question becomes then what happens if additional cross claims are asserted. Themis suggests, and I have long understood to be the case, that ANY cross claim needs to relate to the original claim
But I came across a model answer prepared by a group of VA law profs for an old VA exam question that asserted that only the first cross claim needs to be related, and as long as it is, any additional cross claims can be independent and not at all related to the original claim.
Now I know FRCP 13(g) seems pretty clear that crossclaims need to relate to the original claim, but the profs justify their answer on the basis of FRCP 18(a)...arguing that "A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party."
Thus, according to them, only the first crossclaim needs to relate, and if it is, any other cross claim can be independent. This blows my mind so wondering what you barbri guys think of this.
The first cross claim has to arise from the same T/O as the P's claim. After that, the party can assert additional cross claims against the same party even if they're completely unrelated to any other claim. But remember: (1) court has discretion to sever and (2) every claim has to have a basis for SMJ. So if the additional claim is unrelated to the underlying action, supplemental jurisdiction won't be possible. This means there would have to be FQ or diversity jurisdiction over it.