Also known as: FRCP 14 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 · Rule 14 · impleader · third-party practice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule authorizing a defending party to implead a nonparty who is or may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. The defending party may file the third-party complaint as of right only within fourteen days after serving its original answer. After that period the defending party must obtain leave of court. In actions founded solely on diversity jurisdiction the statute withholds supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under the rule when exercising jurisdiction would destroy complete diversity.
Keystone Steel sued Apex Builders in federal court on a diversity claim arising from a skyscraper project. Apex impleaded Metro Fabrication under the rule seeking indemnity. Keystone then asserted its own state-law defect claim directly against Metro. Because Keystone and Metro share citizenship the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the new claim.
Laura Price sued Valley Regional Hospital after surgery complications. The hospital answered and waited ninety days before filing a third-party complaint against Metro Anesthesia Group for indemnity. Because the filing occurred well after the fourteen-day window the hospital must first obtain court leave before the impleader can proceed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A defendant may file and serve the third-party complaint without leave of court only if it does so within fourteen days after serving its original answer. Filing after that period requires a motion and court approval.
No. When original jurisdiction rests solely on diversity the statute expressly bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14 if exercising jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the complete-diversity requirements of section 1332.
The requirement gives the court control over whether additional parties and claims will complicate or delay the litigation when impleader is sought later in the case. It prevents undue delay and ensures orderly progress of the original action.
No. The statute specifically prohibits supplemental jurisdiction over such claims in diversity-only actions to prevent plaintiffs from circumventing the complete-diversity rule through procedural devices.
…for the shipowner. 211 F. 2d 277. Petitioner, the stevedoring contractor, contends that the order reversing the dismissal of the impleader suit is erroneous. Because of the wide application of the case and the conflicting views that have been expressed on the issues, we granted certiorari. 348 U. S. 813. The United States…