A. Joinder By ∆s: 3d Party Claims (Impleader Rule 14)
a. Price v. CTB –
Latco moved to file a 3rd party complaint against ITW who designed the nails used in the chicken house.
Can implead under Rule 14 against someone who may be liable
“A 3rd party claim will not be permitted when it is based upon a separate & independent claim. Rather, the 3rd party liability must in some way be derivative of the original claim; a 3rd party may be impleaded only when the original ∆ is trying to pass all or part of the liability onto that 3rd party”
“Rule 14 grants Fed. courts discretion in determining the propriety of a 3rd party complaint, & in making its determination, a court may consider the burden upon the litigation that might ensue, as well as the merit of the 3rd party complaint...Rule 21 & 42 further provide original πs protection against vexatious litigation by permitting courts to drop parties or to sever claims.” Court says impleader & Rule 14 allows for efficiency by pulling in possible parties, versus the possibility of re-litigating the same issue
“It is no longer possible to implead a 3rd party claimed to be solely liable to the π. A proposed 3rd party π must allege facts sufficient to establish the derivative or secondary liability of the proposed 3rd party ∆. Thus, under Rule 14(a), a 3rd party complaint is appropriate only where the proposed 3rd party ∆ would be secondarily liable to the original ∆.”
“Derivative liability is central to the operation of Rule 14. It cannot be used as a device to bring into a controversy matters which merely happen to have some relationship to the original action. In other words, a 3rd party claim is not appropriate where the ∆ says, “It was him, not me.” Impleader is only viable where a 3rd party π says, “If I am liable to the π, then my liability is only secondary, & the 3rd party ∆ is derivatively liable & must reimburse me.”
b. Watergate –
Rule 14 should not be used to circumvent the system. IE: it was him not me defense, there must be a relationship btwn the Δ & the 3d party
c. Owen Equipment –
Attempt to circumvent the system by impleading a 3d party that was from the same state as the Π
Cant say I’m not responsible he is, there has to be a relationship btwn the ∆ & the 3d party ∆
a. Rule 14 alone does not create liability, it only decides if we are going to bring all potentially liable parties into the same action b. For Rule 14 to work we need a special relationship btwn the Δ & the 3d party c. Special relationship: Indemnity (Contractual provision), subrogation, contribution, warranty (express or implied) Any one of those things will allow a 3d party ∆ to come in d. A ∆ even with no Fed. question or diversity if there is a common nucleus of operative facts can sue the 3d party ∆, however if the 3d party ∆ is impleaded under Rules 14 etc than he cannot sue that 3d party ∆ e. Hypo: Farmer Price (AL) --> (Defective Work) Chicken House Contractor (IL) 3d party D Nail Mfr (AL) Can the P sue the 3d party ∆? Yes under 13a3, it must be related to the initial claim Will the court hear it? Does the court have the jurisdiction? No we think that πs will sue someone to get to someone else. No diversity were joined under Rule 14 exercising supplemental jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of 1332 1367b restrains the π, but not the 3d party ∆
The nail mfr asserts a claim against the π, but can the π assert a compulsory counter claim against the nail mfr, the claims are related. How then will the court be able to hear this compulsory counter claim, we need an independent jurisdictional basis. The court should not be able to hear. The nail mfr's claim becomes a π & farmer price becomes the ∆, thus the compulsory counter claim could be heard
B. Compulsory Joinder...