Also known as:impleader rule · Rule 14 · third-party practice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A set of federal procedural rules permitting a defending party to bring a nonparty into an action as a third-party defendant when that nonparty is or may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. The third-party complaint must be filed within fourteen days after the defendant serves its original answer or else the defendant must obtain leave of court by motion. In actions founded solely on diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to claims by the original plaintiff against the impleaded party when complete diversity would be destroyed.
Sources & Authorities· 2 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Statutes
Federal Rules
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Diversity Plaintiff Sues Impleaded Party
Keystone Steel, a State A corporation, sued Apex Builders, a State B corporation, in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for more than three million dollars. Apex impleaded Metro Fabrication, a State A subcontractor, for indemnity. Keystone then asserted its own state-law defect claim directly against Metro. The court dismissed Keystone's claim against Metro because the original jurisdiction rested solely on diversity and the statute bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claim against a Rule 14 party whose citizenship destroys complete diversity.
Late Impleader Without Leave
A customer sued StyleLane in federal court after slipping on a spilled drink. StyleLane answered and waited forty days before filing a third-party complaint against SparkleClean for indemnity. SparkleClean moved to dismiss the third-party complaint. The court granted the motion because StyleLane missed the fourteen-day window after its answer and failed to obtain leave of court before filing.
Independent Liability Bars Impleader
Dennis sued Global Structures for a collapsed deck. Global Structures answered and later filed a third-party complaint against Peak Foundation alleging design errors caused the collapse. Conflicting expert reports suggested Global Structures might bear sole responsibility through improper installation. Peak Foundation moved to strike the third-party complaint. The court granted the motion because the possibility of independent rather than derivative liability meant Peak Foundation could not be liable for all or part of Dennis's claim against Global Structures.
Plaintiff Joins Against Impleaded Party
Midnight Assurance sued Plains Assurance in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Plains impleaded Metro Risk as a third-party defendant. Kaitlyn, a State A citizen like Metro Risk, moved to intervene as a plaintiff and assert a bad-faith claim directly against Metro Risk. The court denied the motion because the action rested solely on diversity and the statute withholds supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claim against a Rule 14 party when complete diversity would be absent.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When may a defendant implead a third party without first obtaining court leave?+
A defendant may file a third-party complaint as of right only if it serves the complaint within fourteen days after serving its original answer. After that window closes the defendant must file a motion and obtain leave of court before impleading the third party.
Supporting sources
Does supplemental jurisdiction allow an original plaintiff to sue a nondiverse impleaded party in a diversity-only action?+
No. When original jurisdiction rests solely on diversity, the statute expressly withholds supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14 if exercising jurisdiction would destroy complete diversity.
What substantive requirement must a third-party claim satisfy to support impleader?+
The third-party defendant must be or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff. Independent liability that does not run to the third-party plaintiff will not support impleader.
Supporting sources
May a plaintiff-intervenor assert a claim against a Rule 14 party in a diversity action when the claim would destroy complete diversity?+
No. The statute bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 against Rule 14 parties when the exercise of jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the complete-diversity requirements of section 1332.
Supporting sources
Rules
of the Sixth Circuit), we adopt the following statement from the panel opinion: The plaintiffs, Joan Woodruff and her sister Patricia, then 15 and 16 years of age respectively,…
Civil ProcedureJurisdiction and venue · Federal subject-matter jurisdiction (federal question, diversity, supplemental, and removal)UBEFoundational