Furthermore, even if concerns about forum shopping are set aside, the second of the twin aims would apply to the impleader
just as much as the negligence action.
under Rule 14, the rules governing joinder and intervention provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to circumvent the complete diversity requirement.
to set forth all transactions that may become part of the evidentiary hearing in the supplementary proceedings, in part because additional information may be obtained through future discovery from the Impleader
The court expressly refused to decide the question of whether the concept of ancillary jurisdiction extends to admiralty, as it does to civil impleader
, obviating the need for an independent basis of admiralty jurisdiction in the third-party complaint under Fed.
Second, the Court apparently saw no impediment to the exercise of jurisdiction over the impleader
claim itself, even though it lacked an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
While the Court expressed a willingness to permit the assertion of jurisdiction over the defendant's ancillary claims against a new party under Rule 14,(32) it refused to extend such jurisdiction to the claims of the plaintiff against the new party.(33) The Court worried that plaintiffs might omit nondiverse defendants from their initial complaint, await their predictable impleader
under Rule 14, and then amend their complaint to assert the previously omitted claims, a strategy that might undermine the complete-diversity requirement.(34)
(9.) Rule 14(b) expressly authorizes the plaintiff to implead third-party defendants in response to a counterclaim, and Rule 14(a) by its terms applies generically to allow impleader
of a third-party defendant by a "defending party." FED.
Indeed, an overly literal judge effectively might read the provision out of existence, reasoning that where the original plaintiff's claim against the third-party defendant is related to the original plaintiff's claim against the original defendant (as it almost invariably will be) the impleader
claim is not "the only basis" for supplemental jurisdiction and therefore the first sentence of subsection (c) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction.
1986) ("Rule 13(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the impleader
of non-parties as defendants to cross-claims or counterclaims."); see also Reynolds v.
But, Erie issues also may arise when the court has jurisdiction because the plaintiff asserts a federal question and the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state-created claims, and in a variety of other possible settings, including state-law-created counterclaims, cross-claims, and impleaders
in actions asserting a federal question.