Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Luyster v. Textron, Inc.

United States District Court · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureCross-claimsThird-party practiceService of processRule 13(g)Rule 14Rule 5Rule 12(b)(6)

Facts

After a fatal plane crash, the plaintiff sued several entities involved with the aircraft engine and its component parts, including Superior. Another defendant, KS Gleitlager, later filed a third-party complaint against the United States based on alleged negligence by FAA air traffic controllers in directing the pilot during the emergency, and the Government answered. Shortly thereafter, Superior filed a cross-claim against the Government alleging that if Superior were liable to plaintiff, that liability was caused or contributed to by the Government's negligent air traffic control services, entitling Superior to contribution and/or indemnification. The Government sought dismissal, arguing that Superior's filing was really an improper third-party complaint, was untimely, and was not properly served.

Issue

Whether an original defendant may assert a Rule 13(g) cross-claim against a third-party defendant already in the action, on the theory that the third-party defendant may be liable for contribution or indemnification arising out of the same occurrence. The court also considered whether Superior's filing should be dismissed as untimely or for insufficient service.

Rule

Under Rule 13(g), a cross-claim may be brought by one party against a coparty if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action, including a contingent claim that the coparty is or may be liable for all or part of the claim asserted against the cross-claimant. A coparty includes parties on the same side of the litigation even if they are at different procedural levels, such as an original defendant and a third-party defendant. There is no fixed deadline for filing such a cross-claim; timeliness is left to the court's discretion, generally balancing judicial economy and avoidance of multiple suits against prejudice or surprise. If the cross-defendant has already appeared in the action, service of the cross-claim is governed by Rule 5, not Rule 4.

🔒

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.

After a refinery explosion in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Paula Ortiz sues Red Mesa Valves and Northfield Controls in federal court. Northfield later impleads Prairie County Inspection Services as a third-party defendant, and Prairie answers; Red Mesa then files a claim against Prairie seeking contribution if Paula recovers against Red Mesa.

Is Red Mesa's claim against Prairie most properly treated as a Rule 13(g) cross-claim?

Explanation. Rule 13(g) permits a claim by one party against a coparty arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, including contingent contribution or indemnity claims. The majority adopted the broader view of coparty, under which parties on the same side of the case may be coparties even if they are at different procedural levels, such as an original defendant and a third-party defendant. Because Prairie is already in the action and the claim arises from the same explosion, the claim is a proper cross-claim. (Derived from Luyster v. Textron, Inc. (n.d.).)