LASA Per L'Industria Del Marmo Societa Per Azioni v. Alexander
414 F.2d 143 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g), a cross-claim arises out of the same 'transaction or occurrence' as the original action if it bears a logical relationship to the original claim. This standard is interpreted broadly to permit adjudication of all disputes between parties arising from a common nucleus of operative facts, such as a single construction project, in a single lawsuit.
Facts:
- The City of Memphis contracted with Southern Builders, Inc. to serve as the prime contractor for the construction of a new City Hall.
- Southern Builders subcontracted with Alexander Marble and Tile Company (Alexander) to supply and install all marble for the project.
- Alexander, in turn, contracted with LASA Per L’Industria Del Marmo Societa Per Azioni (LASA), an Italian corporation, to furnish the marble required under its subcontract.
- A dispute arose regarding payment for the marble, with LASA claiming it was owed a balance for the marble and labor provided.
- Alexander alleged that Southern Builders hindered its performance by failing to properly prepare concrete bases, requiring work in inclement weather, and ultimately terminating its subcontract without justification.
- Alexander also alleged that the project's architect provided improper specifications, wrongfully directed Alexander's work, and improperly influenced Southern Builders to terminate Alexander's subcontract, thereby damaging its business reputation.
Procedural Posture:
- LASA filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against Alexander, Southern Builders, Continental Casualty Company (surety), and the City of Memphis.
- Alexander filed an answer and a counterclaim against LASA.
- Southern Builders and its surety filed answers and a counterclaim against LASA.
- Alexander then filed a cross-claim against co-defendants Southern Builders, its surety, and the City of Memphis.
- Alexander also filed a third-party complaint against the architect, A. L. Aydelott, which the District Court treated as a cross-claim under Rule 13(h).
- The District Court granted motions to dismiss Alexander's cross-claims against Southern Builders and Aydelott, holding they did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action.
- Alexander, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 a cross-claim 'arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g) when it involves different contracts and legal theories but is logically related to the same overall construction project and the central issue of fault for problems that occurred during that project?
Opinions:
Majority - Phillips, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A cross-claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action if there is a 'logical relationship' between the claims. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are construed liberally to avoid circuity of action and to dispose of the entire subject matter arising from one set of facts in a single action. Here, although the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims involve different subcontracts and legal theories, they are all logically related because they stem from the Memphis City Hall construction project. The recurring question in all pleadings is who is responsible for the problems with the marble installation. Because many of the same factual and legal issues will be presented and much of the same evidence will be required, the claims share a common core of facts. The purpose of Rule 13 is to resolve all such issues in one action before one court, and any complexity or confusion can be managed by the district court's authority under Rule 42(b) to order separate trials.
Dissenting - McAllister, Senior Circuit Judge
No. The cross-claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim. The original suit by LASA is a contract action for payment, and the counterclaims against it are for breach of that specific contract. In contrast, Alexander's cross-claims against Southern Builders and the architect are separate tort actions for wrongful termination, intentional interference with business, and reputational damage. The facts and legal issues are not common; the proof required for the contract claim (delivery, payment) is entirely different from the proof required for the tort claims (malicious conduct, wrongful inducement). Because the proof of one claim has no connection with the proof of the others, they do not arise from the same transaction.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the broad 'logical relationship' test for determining whether a cross-claim is permissible under FRCP 13(g). The court's decision promotes judicial economy by allowing all related disputes from a single, complex event like a construction project to be resolved in one federal lawsuit, even if they involve different parties, contracts, and legal theories. This liberal interpretation of the federal rules shifts the focus from strict pleading requirements to practical trial management, empowering district judges to handle complexity through procedural tools like severance rather than dismissing ancillary claims. The ruling establishes a strong precedent for consolidating multi-faceted litigation, influencing how parties approach complex disputes in federal court.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: LASA Per L'Industria Del Marmo Societa Per Azioni v. Alexander (1969)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"