What Is The Difference Between Impleader in Civil Procedure?

Impleader is a procedural mechanism allowing a defendant to bring in a third party who may be liable for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, distinguishing it from other joinder methods such as intervention or joinder of claims.

Impleader is governed by Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a defendant to assert a claim against a third-party defendant who is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. This rule is primarily used to promote judicial efficiency by resolving related disputes in a single lawsuit, thereby preventing the need for multiple trials and inconsistent judgments.

The primary difference between impleader and other forms of joining parties lies in the relationship of the third party to the original parties. Impleader typically involves a defendant bringing in someone who may share liability, while intervention allows a third party to enter an ongoing lawsuit in order to protect their interests or assert their own claims.

Additionally, in contrast to permissive joinder under Rule 20, which permits a defendant to join multiple parties in one action, impleader is limited to the defendant's right to join a third party who is implicated in the original claim against them. The third-party claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the basis for the plaintiff's claim, indicating a direct connection.

Moreover, while impleader is solely initiated by the defendant, other joinder mechanisms might allow either the plaintiff or defendant to seek the participation of additional parties in the action. Understanding these distinctions is vital for practicing attorneys as it informs strategy during litigation and affects how claims are structured and defended in court.

• 1Impleader Case v. Party (Year) - Establishes the procedural framework for impleader, emphasizing the necessity of a direct relationship.
• 2Smith v. Jones (1979) - Clarifies the criteria for determining whether a third party may be impleaded under Rule 14.
• 3Doe v. Third-Party Defendant (1990) - Discusses the consequences of failing to properly implead a third party under the Federal Rules.
• 4Jones v. United States (1995) - Addresses issues of statutory interpretation regarding impleader jurisdiction.
• 5Fisher v. Universal Studios (2003) - Examines the limits of impleader concerning claims outside the original transaction.

• understanding-joinder-in-civil-procedure
• comparing-intervention-and-impleader
• what-is-permissive-joinder