Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
1. Which of the following arguments is most likely to achieve the designer's goal of dismissal of the third-party complaint?
The designer is aware that the manufacturer did not follow all of the designer's specifications when making the product.
A consumer from State A filed a $100,000 products liability action in federal court against a manufacturer incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. The consumer claimed that a flaw in the manufacturer's product had resulted in severe injuries to the consumer. In its answer, the manufacturer asserted a third-party complaint against the product designer, also incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. Believing that the consumer had sued the wrong defendant, the manufacturer claimed both that the designer was solely responsible for the flaw that had led to the consumer's injuries and that the manufacturer was not at fault.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
The original defendant may either implead a third party in its answer to the original complaint or file a third-party complaint separately within 14 days after serving the answer. Failure to file a third-party complaint within this 14-day period will require the original defendant (third-party plaintiff) to seek leave of the court to implead.
To properly plead a third-party complaint, the third-party plaintiff (the original defendant) must be claiming that the third-party defendant is derivatively liable (e.g., indemnification or contribution). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a). It is improper for a defendant to file a third-party complaint against a third-party defendant on the theory that the third-party defendant is the only liable party, and that the original defendant is not liable at all.
In the context of diversity cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) allows for a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in «all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.» In application, when an original defendant seeks to implead a third-party defendant for indemnification or contribution, if the third-party defendant does not satisfy diversity requirements, the court will invoke supplemental jurisdiction because the claim falls within the «common nucleus of operative fact» rule of supplemental jurisdiction.
D is correct. The manufacturer's third-party complaint failed to adhere to the pleading requirements under FRCP 14(a) governing third-party claims. To properly assert a third-party claim under FRCP 14(a), the defendant (or third-party plaintiff) must be alleging derivative liability (e.g., indemnification or contribution), not simply claiming that the plaintiff sued the wrong defendant. This is an attempt to entirely shift the blame, rather than properly implead a third-party who is liable to the third-party plaintiff for some or all of the damages. Here, by claiming that the designer was the only party at fault and that the manufacturer was NOT at fault, the manufacturer was simply alleging that the consumer sued the wrong defendant. As stated above, this is not a proper basis for pleading a third-party complaint and is thus the strongest basis for a dismissal.
A is incorrect. Supplemental jurisdiction applies to third-party claims, so there is no need for diversity between the manufacturer and designer here. The manufacturer's claim is so closely related to the consumer's original claim that it is part of the same case or controversy (i.e., whether a product defect existed, and which party was responsible for it).
B is incorrect. Under FRCP 14(a)(1), a defendant is required to seek leave to file a third-party complaint only if he attempts to do so more than 14 days after serving the original answer. Because the manufacturer included its third-party claim in its answer, there was no need for it to seek leave of the court.
C is incorrect. A claim that the manufacturer failed to follow specifications and that this caused the flaw resulting in the consumer's injuries is an improper basis for a motion to dismiss. This is a factual allegation, and motions to dismiss do not resolve factual allegations about the merits of the dispute. Rather, a motion to dismiss seeks to determine whether, if taken as true, the factual allegations are sufficient to state a claim for relief as a matter of law.