Third party defendants filing crossclaims Forum

[swtlilsoni]

It says in 13(g) a party can file a crossclaim against any coparty.
In Luyster v. Textron, the court held that a defendant could file a cross claim against a third party defendant because they were "coparties" even though they weren't on the same level.
Well then how come in 14(a)(2)(B) it says that a third party defendant can assert a crossclaim against another third party defendant? what about regular defendants?? can they not assert crossclaims against regular defendants?

[Oglethorpe]

It's been a while but I will give it a shot.

So FRCP 13 is your general cross claim rule. It permits cross claims between co-parties if the logical relationship test is satisfied (or something like that). This is your classic P v. D1 and D2 scenario. D1 can assert a cross claim against D2 if the logical relationship test is satisfied.

FRCP 14 is the impleader rule. It deals with circumstances where D1 impleads a 3rd party because the 3rd party is responsible for D1's mess up. So I think 14(a)(2)(B) is saying that if D1 impleads a 3rd party and then D2 also impleads a 3rd party, then those 3rd party's can file cross claims against each other (assuming logical relationship is satisfied). It also says that if D1 impleads two or more 3rd party defendants as co-defendants, then those two 3rd party defendants can assert cross claims against each other.

I never read Luyster v. Textron, but it sounds like the holding applies to the following: Say you have P v. D1 and D2. D1 impleads a 3rd party. The case seems to allow D2 to assert a cross claim against the 3rd party.

Hope this helps. Do the Cali lessons on this. I found them very helpful.

[swtlilsoni]

It's been a while but I will give it a shot.

So FRCP 13 is your general cross claim rule. It permits cross claims between co-parties if the logical relationship test is satisfied (or something like that). This is your classic P v. D1 and D2 scenario. D1 can assert a cross claim against D2 if the logical relationship test is satisfied.

FRCP 14 is the impleader rule. It deals with circumstances where D1 impleads a 3rd party because the 3rd party is responsible for D1's mess up. So I think 14(a)(2)(B) is saying that if D1 impleads a 3rd party and then D2 also impleads a 3rd party, then those 3rd party's can file cross claims against each other (assuming logical relationship is satisfied). It also says that if D1 impleads two or more 3rd party defendants as co-defendants, then those two 3rd party defendants can assert cross claims against each other.

I never read Luyster v. Textron, but it sounds like the holding applies to the following: Say you have P v. D1 and D2. D1 impleads a 3rd party. The case seems to allow D2 to assert a cross claim against the 3rd party.

Hope this helps. Do the Cali lessons on this. I found them very helpful.

Thanks for your reply. So are you saying that if P v. D1 and D2, and D1 impleads D3, D3 cannot file a cross claim against D2?

[Oglethorpe]

It's been a while but I will give it a shot.

So FRCP 13 is your general cross claim rule. It permits cross claims between co-parties if the logical relationship test is satisfied (or something like that). This is your classic P v. D1 and D2 scenario. D1 can assert a cross claim against D2 if the logical relationship test is satisfied.

FRCP 14 is the impleader rule. It deals with circumstances where D1 impleads a 3rd party because the 3rd party is responsible for D1's mess up. So I think 14(a)(2)(B) is saying that if D1 impleads a 3rd party and then D2 also impleads a 3rd party, then those 3rd party's can file cross claims against each other (assuming logical relationship is satisfied). It also says that if D1 impleads two or more 3rd party defendants as co-defendants, then those two 3rd party defendants can assert cross claims against each other.

I never read Luyster v. Textron, but it sounds like the holding applies to the following: Say you have P v. D1 and D2. D1 impleads a 3rd party. The case seems to allow D2 to assert a cross claim against the 3rd party.

Hope this helps. Do the Cali lessons on this. I found them very helpful.

Thanks for your reply. So are you saying that if P v. D1 and D2, and D1 impleads D3, D3 cannot file a cross claim against D2?

Again, I did not read the case, but if the holding says that D2 and D3 are co-parites, then 13(g) allows either one to assert a cross claim against the other. So it sounds like D3 could file a cross claim against D2.

[rishabhagny]

My professor just made it simple: if they are on the same side of the "v." they can file a 13(g) Cross-Claim against each other.

[swtlilsoni]

My professor just made it simple: if they are on the same side of the "v." they can file a 13(g) Cross-Claim against each other.

That's pretty simple, thanks for that.

Also, can a third party defendant file a claim against a plaintiff? (if the plaintiff never filed one against them)
And would that be called a counterclaim or a claim? And does it need to be transactionally related

[Birdnals]

My professor just made it simple: if they are on the same side of the "v." they can file a 13(g) Cross-Claim against each other.

Unless it's a P added by rule 24 to a 1332 case. Then the original P can't under 1367(b) supp jurisdiction, need original jurisdiction on the claim to cross claim.

I believe that is the case, could be wrong though

[Birdnals]

My professor just made it simple: if they are on the same side of the "v." they can file a 13(g) Cross-Claim against each other.

That's pretty simple, thanks for that.

Also, can a third party defendant file a claim against a plaintiff? (if the plaintiff never filed one against them)
And would that be called a counterclaim or a claim? And does it need to be transactionally related

It is a counterclaim (ETA; if it is a D going across the v, even if this is the first one) I believe, and it has to be same T/O making it a compulsory counter claim, or it would be a permissive counterclaim, requiring independent jurisdiction under rule 13(a) and (b). The weird thing about this is even though 3rd party D is making a claim against P, P cannot assert a counterclaim because of 1367(b). Claim is not precluded though for later litigation by P against 3rd party D.

[Jsa725]

.

[Birdnals]

Rule 14(a)(3) The plaintiff may assert against the third-party defendant any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff

Right, but this does not include 1332 cases, because 1367(b) says P cannot bring suit against ANY party joined by rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 unless there is independent s/m jurisdiction between P and 3rd party D

[Jsa725]

.

[musicfor18]

My professor told us that most (but not all) courts consider compulsory counterclaims by P an exception to 1367(b). In other words, most allow them, even if they would violate diversity requirements. It's clearly against the plain language of the statute, though, so I would ignore it unless your prof or casebook addressed it.

[Birdnals]

My professor told us that most (but not all) courts consider compulsory counterclaims by P an exception to 1367(b). In other words, most allow them, even if they would violate diversity requirements. It's clearly against the plain language of the statute, though, so I would ignore it unless your prof or casebook addressed it.

If I had to guess, I would say your professor was talking about the compulsory counter claim is not bound by res judicata so you can bring it in subsequent litigation. Same as not being bound by Res Judicata if a P decides to bring a claim in state court but that T/O has an issue that is under exclusive federal jurisdiction (and can't be joined to the state claim in state court).

ETA: not to say you aren't correct, just might want to check with your prof, because I specifically asked mine and he said that the rule absolutely does not allow any claim by P against person made party under 14,19,20,24, and a counter claim is a claim. It's something you should get clarified with how your prof wants it, because 1367(b) issue has been only every practice test from every school I have taken thus far. Pretty testable subject.

[musicfor18]

Prof was definitely talking about 1367(b). The rationale is that 1367(b) forbids "claims" by Ps against blah blah blah, but says nothing about "counterclaims." And I did see a reference to this in a law review article, so I know it's a genuine issue--kind of an open question in the courts. As I said, though, if your prof didn't teach this, then pretend I never said it.