Civ Pro - Rule 14/20 question. Forum

[uzpakalis]

Say A sues B for a breach of contract. B impleads C and D (who are jointly liable) for a car accident that happened that same day. I understand that this is not a proper impleader, but does this satisfy Rule 20? Rule 20 requires (1) same transaction or occurrence, and (2) common question of law or fact. Does the same transaction or occurrence have to relate to the original claim to be proper under Rule 20, or are they from the same transaction or occurrence because both C and D were involved in the car accident.


I guess must ultimate question is, if the claim does not comply with Rule 14, can it still comply with Rule 20?

[Anonymous Loser]

It is the transaction or occurrence involving the original claim that is relevant.

I guess must ultimate question is, if the claim does not comply with Rule 14, can it still comply with Rule 20?

Yes, joinder which is improper under Rule 14 may be proper under Rule 20. I don't think you understand the difference between a party properly joined under Rule 14 and a party joined under Rule 20.

[uzpakalis]

Can you give me an example of where a 3rd party P impleads two D's that would be proper under Rule 20 and not proper under Rule 14?

[Anonymous Loser]

Can you give me an example of where a 3rd party P impleads two D's that would be proper under Rule 20 and not proper under Rule 14?

Any time the the D's are not directly liable to the 3d party P.

Edit: You've sort of changed the question from your original post: are you asking who the original D can implead? Or are you asking if there is an analytical difference between the same transaction / common question language in 14 and 20? To be clear, the original D can't do anything under Rule 20, but the parties who he was trying to implead could still be properly joined under that Rule by the P.