civil procedure--joinder of parties Forum

[leeyatong]

hi, can some tell me what the difference between the joinder of Ds and impleader (third party D)? I feel confused. Please look to the question below:

2002-FEB-Q1-P3:
Teacher lived in State A, where he taught in the public schools for eight years. Toward the end of his eighth year, Teacher was offered a lucrative teaching position in State B. Teacher decided to accept the offer and to move to State B. Teacher notified his school principal that he was leaving and put his State A home up for sale.
The day he sold his house, Teacher packed his belongings, rented a truck from Rentco, a State C corporation with its principal place of business in State A, and began the long drive to State B. While speeding on a State A highway toward State B, Teacher came upon a slow-moving car and applied the brakes in an effort to avoid an accident. The brakes failed, and Teacher rear-ended the slow-moving car. Passenger, a citizen of State A who was riding in the slower car, suffered severe back and neck injuries in the collision. After the State A police prepared a report of the accident, Teacher continued on to State B. Shortly after he arrived there, he purchased a home and began his new job.
Nine months after the accident, Passenger filed suit against Teacher in the United States District Court for the District of State A, alleging that Teacher’s negligence caused Passenger serious personal injury. Passenger’s complaint sought damages in excess of $100,000.
Teacher timely moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that venue was improper. While the motion to dismiss was pending, Teacher filed a third-party complaint against Rentco, seeking indemnification and claiming that the accident occurred because the brakes on the rental truck were defective. Before Teacher’s motion could be heard, Passenger amended her complaint to state a claim directly against Rentco for negligence.

here, passenger sue teacher, then teacher sue rentco, then before teacher's motion could be heard, the passenger amended her complaint to state a claim directly against Rentco. so the teacher sue rentco, it is a impleader and there are two suits: passenger(P) ---teacher (D) and teacher (P) sue Rentco (D), so it is third party claim and the teacher sue rentco must satisfy the diversity J, or supplemental J. am I right?

Then the passenger amended her complaint to state a claim directly against rentco, it is a joinder of the D. and it is Passenger sue teacher (D1) and rentco (D2), and there must be no harm of complete diversity, am I right?

Thanks.

[Borris]

I think you are generally right. Here is how I approached it:

SMJ – Does Fed Court have SMJ over the original P v T claim – YES.

- FQ – No. Tort claim.
- Diversity of Citizenship – Yes.

• T = Citizen of State B (domicile tested at time suit commenced – at this time T was present in State B and had intention to be in State B indefinitely new job, new house).
  P = Citizen of State A (domicile).
  Amount in controversy $100,000 (good faith).

Now that we know that Fed Court can hear the original (T v P) claim under diversity, consider Impleader of RentCo.

- Impleader allows Defendant to join a Third-Party Defendant (TPD) by filing complaint within 14 days of answer and serving TPD with complaint + summons.

• Assuming these formalities are satisfied, Teacher’s filing of a third party complaint against RentCo satisfies this.

- D’s third party claim against TPD must arise from same transaction/occurrence as original claim.

• Yes – Claim against RentCo based on same car accident as original claim.

- D’s claim against TPD must be for indemnity/contribution (i.e. if D is found liable to P, TPD will be liable to D for all or some of D’s liability to P).

• Yes – Claim for indemnity against any liability Teacher has to Passenger.

- Fed Court must have SMJ over TPD claim (either FQ, diversity or supplemental).

• FQ – No
  Diversity – Yes - Teacher (State B) vs. RentCo (State A and State C) + assume amount in controversy is same ($100k).
  Supplemental – Yes - same nucleus of operative facts.

Therefore, Teacher can Implead RentCo.

Now consider whether Passenger (P) can assert claim directly against TPD.

- For claim by original Plaintiff against TPD, no supplemental jurisdiction. Need diversity or FQ jurisdiction.

• FQ – No
  Diversity - No (State A vs (State A + State C)) + assume amount in controversy is same ($100k).

Therefore, Passenger can't assert claim directly against RentCo in same action.

Venue

Venue will be proper in a judicial district in which (i) any defendant resides if all defendant’s reside in the same state; (ii) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (iii) any defendant is subject to the courts PJ, if there is no court that meets (i) or (ii).

Here, Passenger has filed in District Court in State A. Accident occurred in State A. Therefore venue is proper.

[leeyatong]

Perfect, and I appreciate it a lot.