Impleader question Forum

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Post Reply
SKlei

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:01 pm

Impleader question

Post by 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

Platinum
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Impleader question

Post by 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

Bronze
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: Impleader question

Post by 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.

Post Reply

Return to “Forum for Law School Students”