Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Danner v. Anskis

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureCross-ClaimsSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAncillary JurisdictionFRCP 13(g)cross-claimco-party

Facts

The Danner and Weintraub plaintiffs, all Pennsylvania citizens, jointly sued William Anskis, a New Jersey citizen, for injuries suffered in a single automobile accident. The complaint alleged that Anskis negligently drove the other vehicle involved in the collision. After Anskis was defaulted, the Weintraub plaintiffs filed a cross-claim against Mrs. Danner and her husband, alleging that Mrs. Danner's negligent operation of the car in which they were riding caused their injuries. The adverse parties to that cross-claim were all citizens of Pennsylvania.

Issue

Whether Rule 13(g) allows one plaintiff to assert a cross-claim against a co-plaintiff based on the same accident that underlies their common complaint against the defendant, when no counterclaim had been filed against the cross-claimant. If not, whether the district court could nonetheless hear that claim as an independent suit absent diversity between the parties to the cross-claim.

Rule

Under Rule 13(g), a cross-claim must be ancillary to a claim previously stated in a complaint or counterclaim against the party asserting the cross-claim. The rule permits a defendant to cross-claim against a co-defendant out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the original action, and permits a plaintiff to cross-claim against a co-plaintiff only when the plaintiff has been made adverse by a counterclaim; it does not authorize a plaintiff to assert against a co-plaintiff an independent claim arising from the same transaction that is also the subject of their common complaint. Such a claim can be entertained only as an independent suit, which requires an independent jurisdictional basis such as diversity between the parties to that claim.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz and Maya Patel, both citizens of Illinois, jointly sue Trevor Keene, a citizen of Indiana, in federal court in Chicago for injuries from a two-car collision in Joliet. After Keene answers but files no counterclaim, Ortiz files a pleading labeled as a cross-claim alleging Patel's negligent driving caused Ortiz's injuries in the same crash.

How should the federal court rule on Ortiz's pleading?

Explanation. Under the majority's reading of Rule 13(g), a plaintiff may not assert against a co-plaintiff an independent claim merely because it arises from the same event as their common complaint. The cross-claim must be ancillary to a complaint or counterclaim previously filed against the cross-claimant. Because no such claim was filed against Ortiz, her claim against Patel is not a proper Rule 13(g) cross-claim. (Derived from Danner v. Anskis (n.d.).)