Danner v. Anskis
256 F.2d 123 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g), a plaintiff cannot state a cross-claim against a co-plaintiff if the claim is not ancillary to a claim that has been asserted against the cross-claiming plaintiff.
Facts:
- Mrs. Danner was driving an automobile with her three children and two children of the Weintraub family as passengers.
- The automobile driven by Mrs. Danner collided with an automobile driven by William Anskis in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
- All occupants of the Danner vehicle, including both the Danner and Weintraub family members, suffered personal injuries.
- The Weintraub plaintiffs alleged that Mrs. Danner's negligent operation of the vehicle contributed to the accident and their injuries.
- All members of the Danner and Weintraub families involved in the suit were citizens of Pennsylvania.
- William Anskis was a citizen of New Jersey.
Procedural Posture:
- The Danner plaintiffs and Weintraub plaintiffs jointly filed a lawsuit against defendant William Anskis in the U.S. District Court, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The defendant, Anskis, failed to appear, and a default was entered against him.
- The Weintraub plaintiffs then filed a cross-claim against their co-plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Danner, for injuries from the same accident.
- The Danners moved to dismiss the cross-claim.
- The district court granted the Danners' motion, dismissing the Weintraubs' cross-claim.
- The Weintraub plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g) authorize a plaintiff to file a cross-claim against a co-plaintiff that arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original complaint, when no counterclaim has been filed against the cross-claiming plaintiff?
Opinions:
Majority - Maris, Circuit Judge.
No. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g) does not permit such a cross-claim because a cross-claim must be ancillary to a claim already asserted against the party filing the cross-claim. The court reasoned that the purpose of Rule 13(g) is to permit a party to state a claim against a co-party that is ancillary to a claim already filed against them, such as a defendant cross-claiming against a co-defendant, or a plaintiff cross-claiming against a co-plaintiff after a counterclaim has been filed against the plaintiff. Here, the Weintraub plaintiffs' claim against their co-plaintiff, Mrs. Danner, is wholly independent of their common complaint against the defendant Anskis; it is not ancillary to any claim asserted against the Weintraubs. To allow such a claim would improperly extend federal jurisdiction in violation of Rule 82, especially since there is no independent basis for jurisdiction, like diversity of citizenship, between the Pennsylvania-based Weintraubs and Danners.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limited scope of cross-claims under FRCP 13(g), reinforcing the principle of ancillary jurisdiction. It establishes that the rule is not a tool for plaintiffs to litigate independent disputes among themselves within a single federal action merely because the disputes arise from the same event. The case solidifies the view that cross-claims must be defensive or responsive in nature, tethered to a claim already asserted against the cross-claimant. This prevents the improper bootstrapping of non-diverse, state-law claims into federal court and maintains a clear distinction between claims against an opposing party and claims against a co-party.
