Also known as:FRCP 14 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 · third-party practice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural device permitting a defending party to implead a nonparty who may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the claim against the defending party. The device promotes efficient resolution of related claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence while requiring derivative liability rather than independent claims.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Diversity Plaintiff Sues Impleaded Party
Summit Machines, a State X corporation, sued Metro Fabrication, a State Y corporation, in federal court on a diversity breach of contract claim. Metro impleaded Apex Components, also a State Y corporation, for contribution under Rule 14. Summit then asserted its own product defect claims directly against Apex. The court dismissed Summit's claims against Apex because the supplemental jurisdiction statute bars a diversity plaintiff from asserting claims against a Rule 14 party when complete diversity would be destroyed.
Defendant Impleads Supplier for Contribution
Acme Construction sued BuildRight Inc. in federal court for defective materials supplied under a subcontract. BuildRight impleaded Supplier Corp. under Rule 14, alleging Supplier Corp. must reimburse BuildRight for any judgment. Supplier Corp. answered and asserted cross-claims. The court retained the impleader because the third-party claim was purely derivative of the original contract dispute.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Statutes
Federal Rules
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Bruton v. United States391 U.S. 123 (1968)
Third-Party Defendant Asserts Derivative Defense
A retailer was sued by a consumer for product injury. The retailer impleaded the manufacturer under Rule 14 for indemnification. The manufacturer answered and raised a statute-of-limitations defense that would also protect the retailer. The court allowed the defense because it directly undercut the derivative liability asserted in the third-party complaint.
Ashe v. Swenson397 U.S. 436, 444 (1970)
Plaintiff Attempts Claim Against Impleaded Party
A corporation sued another in diversity for breach of contract. The defendant impleaded a same-state third party for contribution under Rule 14. The original plaintiff then asserted additional claims directly against the impleaded party. The court refused supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's new claims because they were asserted by a plaintiff against a Rule 14 party in a diversity-only action.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.545 U.S. 546, 558–59 (2005)
State Agency Seeks Leave to Implead Contractor
A federal agency sued a state contractor for breach of a construction contract. The contractor impleaded a subcontractor under Rule 14 for contribution on the same project. The subcontractor moved to dismiss the impleader. The court permitted the impleader because the contribution claim arose from the identical transaction and satisfied the derivative-liability requirement.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida517 U.S. 44, 106 (1996)
Impleader Adds Insurer for Indemnity
A plaintiff sued a driver for negligence in a car accident. The driver impleaded its liability insurer under Rule 14, claiming the insurer must cover any judgment. The insurer answered and denied coverage. The court kept the impleader because the insurer's obligation was entirely contingent on the outcome of the original negligence claim.
Graham v. Florida560 U.S. 48, 59, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2021, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When does the supplemental jurisdiction statute bar claims involving a Rule 14 party?+
In a diversity-only action, section 1367(b) prohibits supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14 when exercising jurisdiction would destroy complete diversity. The bar applies even if the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with the original action.
What must a defendant show to implead a third party under Rule 14?+
The defendant must show that the third party may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. Independent claims against the third party are not permitted. The liability must be derivative.
Does Rule 14 require a third-party defendant to assert all possible claims against the third-party plaintiff?+
No. Rule 14 does not impose a compulsory counterclaim requirement on the third-party defendant. A later suit by the third-party defendant against the third-party plaintiff is not barred by claim preclusion.
How does Rule 14 interact with the timing requirement for filing a third-party complaint?+
A defendant may file a third-party complaint as of right within fourteen days after serving its answer. After that period, the defendant must obtain leave of court by motion.
545 U.S. 546, 558–59 (2005)Civil Procedure
…shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs…