Can a Defendant join a party under FRCP 20, or only FRCP 14? Forum

[heavoldgotjuice]

Can a Defendant invoke FRCP 13(h) to join a party in a lawsuit so that he can file a counterclaim/cross-claim against that new party under FRCP 19 or 20?

Or, can a Defendant only bring parties into the lawsuit via FRCP 14 for indemnity?

Sorry for all the questions --- mad confused.

Thank you everyone

[SemperLegal]

Can a Defendant invoke FRCP 13(h) to join a party in a lawsuit so that he can file a counterclaim/cross-claim against that new party under FRCP 19 or 20?

Or, can a Defendant only bring parties into the lawsuit via FRCP 14 for indemnity?

Sorry for all the questions --- mad confused.

Thank you everyone

If the requirements fit, than either party can join a new party under FRCP 19 or 20. After having one claim from the same transaction or occurrence, than they can also bring, under R. 18 any other claims that they may have against that party.

[heavoldgotjuice]

I was under the impression that FRCP 20 only applies to joinder of parties by the original P's ... doesn't it seem weird to allow a D to be able to bring additional parties into the suit??

[SemperLegal]

I was under the impression that FRCP 20 only applies to joinder of parties by the original P's ... doesn't it seem weird to allow a D to be able to bring additional parties into the suit??

No, if they are already in court, judicial economy allows them to argue whatever is related. Picture this. P sue D for hitting me him a car. D also sues P $30 for an unrelated contract claim. Rule 18 LETS Pjoin the claim. And why not? We are in court anyway, the judge is there, lets get it over with.

D, counter sue P because D says he don't owe $30, P defaulted and actually owes D. Thats a mandatory CC . D joins P's brother since the contract dealt with his property and he will lose substantially if P is found in default. This is a mandatory R. 19 joinder of party.

D also sue Chris Paul, since he was the cause of the accident (jumped in front of my car). This is a Rule 14 Third Party complaint. D can sink in whatever claims he has against Chris Paul under R. 18. He must raise certain cc if he can. If he has a valid CC, he can raise whatever claims that he may have. At the same time, P can raise any claims arising out of the same T&O as the accident. R. 14(a)(3) If he has a claim that is part of the accident, he can also raise those under R. 18.

If the Judge thinks things are too complex, she can split the cases under R. 42(b)

[1l2016]

It depends on the facts. If D is just trying to impleade someone, he/she would use Rule 14. But if you're trying to join a party as part of a cross claim or counterclaim, then you would use Rule 13(h), which is governed by Rules 19 & 20.

I believe this is what Semper was saying in his counterclaim example, but he left out 13(h) which is how you get to Rules 19 & 20.

[heavoldgotjuice]

Oh ok, so D invokes 13(h) to join a party under FRCP 19 or 20?

Can D invoke 13(h) and join a party under FRCP 20, without having to file a counterclaim against P?

Like, D can just invoke 13(h) and join a party under FRCP 20 on his own if he meets the:
(1) same transaction/occurrence + (2) common question of fact/law

[1l2016]

Oh ok, so D invokes 13(h) to join a party under FRCP 19 or 20?

Can D invoke 13(h) and join a party under FRCP 20, without having to file a counterclaim against P?

Like, D can just invoke 13(h) and join a party under FRCP 20 on his own if he meets the:
(1) same transaction/occurrence + (2) common question of fact/law

If A---> B and B wants to bring in C so that it looks like this: A--->B--->C that would be done under Rule 14.

But if A-->B and B counterclaims against A and also wants to join an additional party, 13(h) controls joinder of parties from cross claims and counterclaims. Then you'd determine if it's a Rule 19 or 20 joinder.

[heavoldgotjuice]

My main concern is this:


Can a D bring in another D based on FRCP 19 or 20 on his own? aka, there's no cross-claim or counter-claim.

Basically, it's P v. D1. D1 files a motion to join D2 as a co-defendant under FRCP 20. Is this possible?

My professor explicitly stated that this is alright, but everywhere I look it seems to be a resounding NO.

[Nelson]

My main concern is this:


Can a D bring in another D based on FRCP 19 or 20 on his own? aka, there's no cross-claim or counter-claim.

Basically, it's P v. D1. D1 files a motion to join D2 as a co-defendant under FRCP 20. Is this possible?

My professor explicitly stated that this is alright, but everywhere I look it seems to be a resounding NO.

You're looking for Rule 14 on Third Party Practice.

A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.

[heavoldgotjuice]

First, P sues D1 for breach of K.

Then, D1 "joins" D2 as a co-defendant.

Finally, D1 then files a tort-claim against D2 for fraudulent misrepresentation, which caused D1's breach of K with P.


My professor stated that this is proper under FRCP 20, but not FRCP 19.


Do any of these additional facts change the situation?
I had thought it was FRCP 14 too, but this was part of a practice exam fact pattern she gave us in which she went through a nice long discussion about how it is FRCP 20, but 19 - she said nothing about FRCP 14 ...

[1l2016]

First, P sues D1 for breach of K.

Then, D1 "joins" D2 as a co-defendant.

Finally, D1 then files a tort-claim against D2 for fraudulent misrepresentation, which caused D1's breach of K with P.


My professor stated that this is proper under FRCP 20, but not FRCP 19.


Do any of these additional facts change the situation?
I had thought it was FRCP 14 too, but this was part of a practice exam fact pattern she gave us in which she went through a nice long discussion about how it is FRCP 20, but 19 - she said nothing about FRCP 14 ...

I mean, go with whatever your prof says since she is the one grading your exam, but the scenario you described is 3rd party joinder which falls under Rule 14. I would e-mail your prof and clarify what your prof wants.

[heavoldgotjuice]

I did email her - she never replies.

I emailed another civ pro professor at my school, and he says that it is definitely frcp 14, and is "utterly shocked" that i would even ask such a question...


Can D1 implead D2, then file a claim against D2? (such as in my example above?)

E.g., D1 impleads D2, then D1 sues D2 (is this a cross-claim?) for a tort related to the original action between P and D1

[1l2016]

I did email her - she never replies.

I emailed another civ pro professor at my school, and he says that it is definitely frcp 14, and is "utterly shocked" that i would even ask such a question...


Can D1 implead D2, then file a claim against D2? (such as in my example above?)

E.g., D1 impleads D2, then D1 sues D2 (is this a cross-claim?) for a tort related to the original action between P and D1

If D1 impleads D2 it's not a cross claim because they're not co-parties. Again, that's a Rule 14 joinder.

[2807]

Rule 14 =

D1 impleads D2, and is saying: "IF ME--->then YOU"
(D1 says, "if I am found at fault here, it is really YOU D2 !)

D1 needs "Permission and Power."
1. Permission: from statute (Rule 14)
2. Power: Attained from JX, usually 1367, D1 must still show "common nucleus of facts"

Most of these rules can be solved with the handy "Permission and Power" approach.