Top Law Schools

1L here, my Civ Pro final is next week and I'm having trouble understanding the difference between Compulsory Counterclaims and Permissive Counterclaims. i understand that compulsory counterclaims arise out of the same transaction and occurrence as the original claim, but as far as permissive counterclaims are concerned, are they not essentially just the same as FRCP 18(a) claims: "a counterclaim may assert any claims against it." I'm confused as to whether there is a difference between permissive counterclaims and FRCP 18(a) claims, since both arent related to the transaction/occurrence of the original claim and both have to do a separate analysis of subject matter jurisdiction (and I suppose venue as well).

My professor keeps telling me that the point is to "get the DEF on the hook" with the compulsory/permissive counterclaims and then to "pull in the sinker" with additional claims of FRCP 18(a) after they are brought in to the case.

Essentially, what's the difference? help lol

-grateful 1L

*bump* please help somebody lol

18(a) allows a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim to join as many claims as it has against an opposing party.

The party must FIRST make a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, then it can join any other 18(a) claims so long as there is SMJ.

In your situation, the party must FIRST make a 13(b) permissive counterclaim, then it's allowed to tack on additional 18(a) claims.

Your prof is right by saying to first get the defendant on the hook, meaning by FIRST asserting a 13(a) or (b) counterclaim, then sinking them with additional 18(a) claims. Watch SMJ restrictions. Hope this helps.