Also known as: impleader claim · impleader's claim · third-party claim · Rule 14 claim
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural device by which a defending party brings a nonparty into an action on the ground that the nonparty may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the claim asserted against it. The device requires derivative or secondary liability such as indemnity or contribution rather than an independent claim. A third-party complaint may be filed as of right only within fourteen days after the defendant serves its original answer. Thereafter leave of court is required.
Igor Ito sued Ironwood Capital for breach of a loan agreement. Ironwood answered and then filed a timely third-party complaint against Indigo Textiles seeking contractual indemnity on the same loan transaction. Ironwood also asserted an unrelated breach-of-warranty claim against Indigo arising from a separate equipment sale. The court permitted both the indemnity and warranty claims to proceed together in the third-party action.
Iain Irons sued Island Manufacturing for product liability. Island answered and impleaded Interlink Communications on an indemnity theory. The court granted summary judgment on the indemnity claim alone and expressly determined that no just reason for delay existed. The partial judgment became immediately appealable even though the main claim remained pending.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Imani Idowu, a citizen of State A, sued Ibrahim Iqbal, a citizen of State B, in federal court on a state-law claim exceeding $75,000. Iqbal answered and impleaded Israel Irving, also a citizen of State B, for contribution. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the impleader claim despite the lack of diversity between Iqbal and Irving.
Ingrid Innes sued Interlink Communications for antitrust violations. Interlink answered and impleaded Ironwood Capital on a contribution theory. The court scheduled a bench trial on the impleader claim alone. Ironwood demanded a jury, and the court granted the demand because the contribution claim presented legal issues triable to a jury.
A defendant may implead as of right only within fourteen days after serving its original answer. After that period expires, the defendant must obtain leave of court by motion before filing the third-party complaint.
Supporting sources
The third-party claim must assert derivative or secondary liability such as indemnity or contribution. An independent claim against a different wrongdoer does not qualify for impleader.
Supporting sources
Yes. The possibility that the third-party defendant might also be directly liable to the original plaintiff does not defeat impleader when the defendant asserts a proper claim for indemnity or contribution.
Supporting sources
The filing is procedurally improper. The court may grant a motion to strike or dismiss the third-party complaint on that ground even if the substantive indemnity theory would otherwise be viable.
Supporting sources
…at 377. Federal courts, by the time of Kroger , were routinely exercising ancillary jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims, impleader claims, cross-claims among defendants, and claims of parties who intervened "of right." See id. , at 375, n. 18 (collecting cases). In Kroger , however, "the nonfederal claim . . . was…