[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Alessandro Maggi
Date: 06 Dec 2001
Time: 21:29:44
I realize that a partial answer was previously given but there is an additional aspect of the impleader situation that I'm not too clear about...It's my understanding from your previous reply that the TTD will not normally "spoil" the subject-matter jurisdiction of the case. Under R. 14 (a) [7] the TTD cannot assert a claim other than "out of the transaction...." My question is: Where the P has asserted a claim against the TTD under R. 14 (a) [7], the rule states that the TTD may assert any counterclaims and cross-claims as provided in R. 13. Does this also allow the TTD to also bring a 13 (b) permissive counter-claim? If so, where the P and the TTD are citizens of the same state or where subject matter jurisdiction does not otherwise exist, wouldn't that allow the TTD to avail of federal courts on a claim that would have otherwise been in the state court? In other words, once the P has asserted a claim against the TTD under R. 14 (a) [7], does this open the door to the federal court for the TTD's R. 13 (b) counterclaims? The Wright, Miller, Kane reading seems to indicate that the court will not have jurisdiction on such a claim.