Clark v. Assocs. Commercial Corp.

149 F.R.D. 629 (D. Kan. 1993)

 

RULE:

Impleader is proper only if the third-party defendant is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a).

FACTS:

The possessor alleged that third-party defendants effected a repossession of property through breach of the peace. The associates brought an indemnity claim against third-party defendants for any money associates may be found liable to possessors. Third-party defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The associates contended that third-party defendants had waived the defense of personal jurisdiction by failing to consolidate this defense in their initial motion for a more definite statement. Third-party defendants responded that a motion for a more definite statement was not a responsive pleading.

ISSUE:

May the associates may recover against third-party defendants?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

The court found that the associates had stated a valid claim for indemnity against third-party defendants. The court found that the practical and equitable considerations overwhelmingly favor trial of all claims herein to a single jury. The motion to strike the third-party complaint or separate trial was denied. The court concluded that the possessor had stated a viable claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, the court denied third-party defendants' motion to dismiss and their amended motion for a more definite statement.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.