robinhoodOO wrote:Scenario 2: It completely depends on the basis the claim is brought as to whether (1) it should be denied because the third-party defendant is improperly bringing a claim or (2) Whether diversity is destroyed.
Under Rule 14, the third-party defendant MAY only assert (1) Defenses he would have against the original D (now also the third-party plaintiff) and (2) claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as P's original claim.
If the 3rd party D does this, it would invoke compulsory claims of P, which requires diversity only--no supplemental jurisdiction for these types of claims.
Follow up for clarification:
Prong 2 lets third party plaintiff sue the plaintiff for any claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. If it's an unrelated matter, third party plaintiff cannot assert anything against plaintiff.
Otherwise, against the original defendant, the third party plaintiff can only make claims for defenses?