⚡ 10-Second Rule
A lawsuit has three side doors: drag in your payback person, jump in yourself, or toss the prize into court.
🧒 ELI-10 Scene
Leo's baseball smashes Mrs. Chen's window, and she demands he pay. Leo tells his mom, "Fine — but Sam shoved my arm, so if I pay, Sam owes me back." That's dragging in your payback person. Meanwhile, neighbor Rosa hears about the meeting. The same ball flattened her garden gnome, and nobody is speaking up for her. She walks in and takes a seat. That's jumping in. Finally, Mrs. Chen found a twenty-dollar bill both boys claim. She hands it to Leo's mom, says "you decide," and steps away. That's tossing the prize into court.
⚖️ Actual Rule
Impleader. Rule 14(a)(1) lets a defending party, as third-party plaintiff, serve a complaint on a nonparty "who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it." The third-party claim must be derivative — indemnity or contribution flowing to the defendant if the defendant loses — not an assertion that the third party, rather than the defendant, is liable directly to the plaintiff. The defendant may implead without leave within 14 days after serving its original answer; after that, court permission is required.
Intervention. Rule 24(a)(2) grants intervention of right on timely motion when the absentee claims an interest relating to the property or transaction at issue, disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the ability to protect that interest, and existing parties do not adequately represent it. Rule 24(b) allows permissive intervention, in the court's discretion, for anyone with a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action; both routes require timeliness.
Interpleader. A stakeholder holding property claimed by multiple rivals can force the claimants to litigate among themselves. Rule 22 interpleader follows ordinary jurisdictional rules: complete diversity between the stakeholder and all claimants and more than $75,000 in controversy (or a federal question). Statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 needs only $500 or more at stake and minimal diversity — any two adverse claimants of diverse citizenship — provided the stakeholder deposits the property or a bond with the court; it also carries nationwide service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 and venue where any claimant resides under 28 U.S.C. § 1397.
ELI-10 translation: pull in whoever must repay you, sit down if your stuff is at stake, or hand the disputed prize to the judge.
🔍 Ask These Questions
- Is the defendant claiming a nonparty owes it reimbursement if it loses — indemnity or contribution? (Leo can drag in Sam only to say "Sam repays me.")
- Or is the defendant really saying "sue him, not me"? (Pointing the finger at a stranger is not a valid drag-in.)
- Was the impleader filed within 14 days of the answer, or with court leave after? (Early drag-ins are free; late ones need the judge's okay.)
- Does an outsider seeking to intervene show interest, practical impairment, and inadequate representation, all timely? (Rosa gets a guaranteed seat only if nobody inside protects her gnome.)
- If not, can she still enter permissively through a common question, if the judge agrees? (A shared question can earn an invitation, but the judge may decline.)
- For a stakeholder facing rival claimants, does the case fit Rule 22 or § 1335? (The statute's door is wider: tiny stakes, any two rivals from different states, deposit required.)
⚠️ Bar Trap
Exam language: Examiners tempt you to approve a third-party complaint alleging that the third party is solely liable to the plaintiff — "it was the architect's fault, not mine." Rule 14 permits impleader only for derivative liability running to the defendant, such as indemnity or contribution. A separate trap: confusing the two interpleaders — statutory interpleader requires only minimal diversity between claimants and $500, while Rule 22 demands complete diversity and the ordinary amount in controversy.
ELI-10: You can only drag in someone who would owe you money after you pay. "Blame him instead of me" is a defense, not a drag-in. And remember which interpleader door needs which ticket.
🧪 Question
A homeowner sued a general contractor in federal district court, with proper diversity jurisdiction, alleging that the contractor's negligent framing caused the homeowner's new sunroom roof to collapse. Ten days after serving its answer, the contractor served a third-party complaint on the project's structural engineer. The third-party complaint alleges only that the engineer's defective load calculations were the sole cause of the collapse and that the engineer is therefore liable directly to the homeowner for the full amount of any damages. The engineer moves to strike the third-party complaint.
How should the court rule?
(A) Deny the motion, because the third-party claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the homeowner's claim. (B) Deny the motion, because impleader within 14 days of the answer requires no court approval. (C) Grant the motion, because a third-party complaint must assert that the third party is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the claim against it. (D) Grant the motion, because a third-party defendant may never be added without the plaintiff's consent.
Answer: (C). Rule 14(a)(1) authorizes impleader only for derivative liability — indemnity or contribution owed to the defending party — and the contractor's pleading alleges instead that the engineer is solely and directly liable to the homeowner, which is merely a defense to the homeowner's claim, not a proper third-party claim.
💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong
- (A) substitutes a transactional-relatedness test; relatedness is necessary in practice but never sufficient — the claim must still be derivative.
- (B) is a true statement about timing that answers the wrong question; filing without leave was proper, but the claim's substance still fails Rule 14.
- (D) invents a consent requirement; plaintiffs have no veto over impleader, which is the defendant's device.
- ELI-10: The misconception is treating impleader as a finger-pointing tool. It is a repayment tool: "if I pay her, he pays me."
