/FED-ruhl ROOL of SIV-il pruh-SEE-jer FOR-teen/·rule
Also known as:FRCP 14 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 · Rule 14 · impleader · third-party practice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule that authorizes a defending party to implead a nonparty who may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the claim against it. The defending party may file the third-party complaint as of right only within fourteen days after serving its answer. In actions founded solely on diversity jurisdiction, the supplemental jurisdiction statute withholds jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons joined under the rule when complete diversity would be destroyed.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Plaintiff Claim Against Impleaded Party
BlueOcean Logistics, a State A citizen, sued Harbor Port Services, a State B citizen, in federal court on a diversity claim for container damage. Harbor Port impleaded Bayview Stevedoring, also a State B citizen, for indemnity. BlueOcean then asserted its own negligence claim directly against Bayview. The court dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the statute bars plaintiffs from suing nondiverse Rule 14 parties in diversity-only actions.
Late Impleader Without Leave
Summit Logistics sued Sentinel Mutual in federal court after a coverage denial. Sentinel answered and waited ninety days before filing a third-party complaint against Apex Claims Services for reimbursement. Apex moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because Sentinel failed to obtain leave after the fourteen-day window for impleader as of right had closed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Statutes
Federal Rules
Hornbooks
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When must a defendant obtain leave of court to implead a third party under Rule 14?+
A defending party may implead without leave only within fourteen days after serving its original answer. After that period the defendant must file a motion and obtain court permission before serving the third-party complaint.
Supporting sources
Does 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim against a Rule 14 party in a diversity action?+
Yes. In actions founded solely on diversity, the statute expressly withholds supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14 when exercising jurisdiction would destroy complete diversity.
Supporting sources
Can intervening plaintiffs assert claims against a Rule 14 party when original jurisdiction rests only on diversity?+
No. Section 1367(b) also bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 against Rule 14 parties when complete diversity would be absent.
Supporting sources
Does factual overlap between the main claim and a proposed claim against a Rule 14 party override the bar in § 1367(b)?+
No. The statute focuses on party alignment and the preservation of complete diversity rather than the degree of factual connection between claims.
Supporting sources
350 U.S. 124, 76 S. Ct. 232, 100 L. Ed. 133 (1956)Admirality Law
…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…
TortsNegligence · Problems relating to causationUBEIntermediate