LASA Per L'Industria Del Marmo Societa Per Azioni v. Alexander

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1969 · Civil Procedure

414 F.2d 143 (1969)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureRule 13(g)Rule 13(h)Rule 42(b)ancillary jurisdictioncross-claimthird-party complainttransaction or occurrence

Facts

An Italian corporation sued for an alleged balance due for marble and labor furnished for the Memphis City Hall project, naming the subcontractor, prime contractor, surety, and City of Memphis. In response, the parties filed multiple counterclaims, cross-claims, and a third-party complaint centering on responsibility for problems involving the marble work on the same construction project. Alexander's dismissed claims sought payment allegedly due under its subcontract and damages from the prime contractor and architect for defective preparation, improper specifications, inclement-weather installation, wrongful termination, and harm to business reputation. The prime contractor's dismissed cross-claim against Alexander sought damages for delays, faulty materials and workmanship, and failure to conform to specifications.

Issue

Whether the dismissed cross-claims and the third-party complaint, treated as a cross-claim, arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or pending counterclaims so that they could be joined under Rule 13 and supported by ancillary jurisdiction. Also, whether complexity and the presence of a jury demand justified excluding those claims from the action.

Rule

Rules 13 and 14 are remedial and should be construed liberally to adjudicate in one action all rights arising from one set of facts. A claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence when it bears a logical relationship to the subject matter of the original action or a counterclaim; transaction is a flexible concept that may include a series of occurrences forming the same aggregate or core of facts. When a cross-claim or related claim arises from that same core of facts, the federal court may hear it as ancillary to the original action without an independent basis of jurisdiction.

🔒

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.

A tile supplier from Spain sues a flooring subcontractor, a general contractor, and the project owner in federal court over an unpaid balance for materials used in renovating a civic arena in Cleveland, Ohio. The subcontractor files a cross-claim against the general contractor alleging the contractor supplied an uneven substrate, forced installation during prohibited temperature conditions, and then blamed the subcontractor for the flooring failures.

Should the court most likely allow the subcontractor's cross-claim under Rule 13 without requiring an independent basis of subject-matter jurisdiction for that cross-claim?

Explanation. Rules 13 and 14 are construed liberally to resolve in one action all rights arising from one set of facts. A claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence when it has a logical relationship to the subject matter of the complaint or a counterclaim. Here, the cross-claim centers on who caused the flooring problems on the same arena project, so it shares the same aggregate or core of facts. Because it is ancillary to the original action, no independent jurisdictional basis is required.