Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

Toberman v. Copas

Citation. 800 F. Supp. 1239 (M.D. Pa. 1992)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff sues defendant who then impleads third-party defendants.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A defendant may not use FRCP 14 to implead a third-party defendant on the basis that third-party defendant is directly or wholly liable to the plaintiff.

Facts.

Plaintiffs sued several Defendants for injuries they sustained on the Pennsylvania turnpike. Defendant Menendez filed a third-party suit against Swarthout and St. Johnsbury Trucking Company. The third-party defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for a more definitive statement pursuant to FRCP 12 in the alternative. The third-party defendants argued the court did not have jurisdiction over the third-party claims.

Issue.

May a defendant implead a third-party defendant through FRCP 14 on the basis that the third-party defendant is directly or wholly liable to the plaintiff?

Held.

No, a defendant may not implead a third-party defendant through FRCP 14 on the basis that the third-party defendant is directly or wholly liable to the plaintiff. Defendant Menendez will be given a chance to amend the impleader complaint to conform with FRCP 14. If he fails to do so the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint will be granted.

Discussion.

  1. FRCP 14 enables third-party complaints to be served by a defendant or third-party upon a nonparty who may be liable to the third-party plaintiff (original defendant) for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff (original defendant).
  2. FRCP 14promotes judicial economy because it allows the defendant to bring to judgement the third-party defendant that may be liable right away instead of having to wait for the action against him to proceed to completion and then bring the claim against the third-party defendant later on.
  3. Before 1948 FRCP 14 allowed a defendant to implead a party based on a “not me defense”—that the third-party plaintiff was actually wholly liable for the plaintiff’s injury. But this is no longer allowed.
  4. FRCP 14 now only allows a defendant to implead a third-party defendant based on derivative liability, like indemnification or contribution.
  5. The proper way for a defendant to contest their liability is in their answer.
  6. Here, Defendant Menendez is attempting to implead the third-party defendants Swarthout and St. Johnsbury Trucking Company based on the premise that they are wholly liable to the plaintiff.
  7. Defendant Menendez will be given a chance to amend his third-party complaint to conform with FRCP 14. If he fails to do so the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint will be granted.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following