Luyster v. Textron, Inc.
266 F.R.D. 54 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g), an original defendant and a third-party defendant are considered 'coparties,' allowing the original defendant to file a cross-claim against the third-party defendant if the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original action.
Facts:
- On May 24, 2005, Alfred Zadow was piloting a Cessna aircraft with his wife, Donna Zadow, as a passenger.
- Zadow reported engine trouble to an air traffic controller employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
- Zadow asked the controller for the location of the closest airport.
- At that time, the aircraft was approximately two miles from Candlelight Farms Airport and over ten miles from Danbury Airport.
- The FAA controller informed Zadow that the nearest airport was Danbury and provided instructions to fly toward it.
- Zadow followed the controller's instructions, but the plane crashed approximately four miles from Danbury Airport, resulting in the deaths of both occupants.
- Superior Air Parts, Inc. was a distributor of component parts for the aircraft's engine.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth Luyster, as executor, filed suit in federal district court against several defendants, including Textron Inc.
- Luyster later filed an amended complaint, adding Superior Air Parts, Inc. and KS Gleitlager as defendants.
- Defendant KS Gleitlager filed a third-party complaint against the United States Government, bringing it into the lawsuit.
- The Government filed an answer to KS Gleitlager's third-party complaint.
- Defendant Superior Air Parts, Inc. filed a cross-claim against the Government for contribution and indemnification.
- The Government filed a motion in the federal district court to dismiss Superior's cross-claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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) permit an original defendant to file a cross-claim against a third-party defendant, or are they not considered 'coparties' because they are at different procedural levels of the litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - McKenna, District Judge.
Yes. An original defendant and a third-party defendant are considered 'coparties,' and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g) therefore permits the original defendant to file a cross-claim against the third-party defendant. The court adopted the 'Broad Definition' of 'coparty,' which encompasses any party that is not an opposing party, regardless of their procedural level in the litigation. This interpretation aligns with the mandate of Rule 1 to secure the 'just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,' as it avoids the inefficiency of requiring a party to file a separate action and then move for consolidation. The court reasoned that the 'Narrow Definition,' which would require parties to have the exact same status (e.g., both be original defendants), creates a procedural gap and is contrary to the general policy of liberally construing the rules to resolve all related claims in a single lawsuit.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the meaning of 'coparty' under FRCP 13(g) by endorsing a broad, functional approach over a rigid, formalistic one. It prioritizes judicial economy and efficiency, signaling that courts should avoid interpretations of procedural rules that would lead to duplicative litigation. By allowing an original defendant to cross-claim against a third-party defendant, the ruling streamlines complex, multi-party litigation, ensuring that all claims for contribution or indemnity arising from a single event can be adjudicated in one forum. This solidifies a preference for resolving entire controversies at once, rather than forcing parties to navigate cumbersome procedural hurdles.
Unlock the full brief for Luyster v. Textron, Inc.