Also known as: Rule 14a · FRCP 14(a) · Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a) · Rule 14
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure authorizing a defendant to serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. The rule requires that the third-party claim be derivative rather than independent and permits the court to exercise discretion over late filings or severance.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Summit Machines sued Metro Fabrication in federal court on diversity grounds for breach of an equipment contract. Metro impleaded Apex Components under Rule 14 for contribution. Summit then added direct defect claims against Apex. The court dismissed Summit's claims against Apex because complete diversity was lacking and the statute barred supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claims against a Rule 14 party.
Dennis hired Global Structures to build a deck that later collapsed. Global answered the complaint and more than fourteen days later filed a third-party complaint against Peak Foundation for contribution. Peak moved to strike the complaint. The court granted the motion because Global failed to obtain leave for the untimely filing even though the claim asserted derivative liability.
Ricardo Rojas sued Ridgeway Partners for construction defects. Ridgeway answered and sought to implead a supplier for direct damages Ridgeway suffered on the same project. The supplier moved to dismiss the third-party complaint. The court dismissed the claim because Rule 14 permits only derivative liability for contribution or indemnity and does not authorize an independent claim by the defendant.
Riverfront Developments sued a vessel owner in federal court for cargo damage. The owner impleaded the stevedore under Rule 14(a) seeking only indemnity. The stevedore objected that the claim was too broad. The court permitted the impleader because Rule 14(a) authorizes only derivative liability for contribution or indemnity.
Regal Apparel contracted with a supplier containing an arbitration clause. Regal was sued for defects and attempted to implead the supplier for contribution. The supplier moved to compel arbitration of the third-party claim. The court granted the motion and stayed the impleader because the contractual arbitration agreement covered the derivative claim and required enforcement.
BlueOcean Logistics sued Harbor Port Services on diversity grounds. Harbor impleaded Bayview Stevedoring under Rule 14 for indemnity. BlueOcean then asserted its own negligence claim against Bayview. The court dismissed only BlueOcean's claim because the statute withholds supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff claims against Rule 14 parties in diversity actions while preserving the defendant's indemnity claim.
No. In an action founded solely on diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) expressly withholds supplemental jurisdiction 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 under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.
Supporting sources
…or sale of any security." [^maj-7]: TSC Industries arose under § 14(a), as amended, of the 1934 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78n(a), and Rule 14a-9, 17 CFR § 240.14a-9 (1975). [^maj-8]: This application of the § 14(a) definition of materiality to § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 is not disputed. See Brief for Petitioners 17, n. 12; Brief for…
…of Iowa and a Nebraska corporation. When the Nebraska defendant impleaded an Iowa corporation as a third-party defendant under Rule 14(a)
…or the District Court, and is not fairly within the question presented. Therefore we do not consider it here. See this Court's Rule 14
…(upon pain of a bar) all counterclaims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence from which the plaintiff's claim arose. Rule 14
No. The rule authorizes impleader only when the third party may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. It does not permit impleader for damages the defendant suffered independently from the underlying events.
Supporting sources
A defendant must obtain leave if the third-party complaint is filed more than fourteen days after service of the original answer. The court retains discretion to grant leave when the substantive criteria for impleader are met and no prejudice is shown.
Supporting sources
No. Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 against a Rule 14 party when complete diversity would be destroyed. The statute applies the same prohibition to claims by would-be intervenor plaintiffs.
Supporting sources