Toberman v. Copas
800 F. Supp. 1239, 1992 WL 249050, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15135 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14, a third-party complaint is only permissible if it asserts a claim of derivative or secondary liability, such as contribution or indemnification, against the third-party defendant. Furthermore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, any complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests.
Facts:
- On May 26, 1990, a motor vehicle accident occurred on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
- Jon and Carol Toberman were involved in this accident and sustained various injuries.
- Richard Menendez was one of the individuals involved in the multi-vehicle accident.
- Timothy Swarthout and St. Johnsbury Trucking Company were also allegedly involved in the events of the accident, though they were not mentioned in the Tobermans' initial complaint.
Procedural Posture:
- Jon and Carol Toberman filed a complaint alleging negligence in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Richard Menendez and other defendants.
- Defendant Richard Menendez filed a Third-Party Complaint against Timothy Swarthout and St. Johnsbury Trucking Company.
- Third-Party Defendants Swarthout and St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. filed a motion to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement.
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 third-party complaint violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14 and 8 when it primarily alleges that the third-party defendant is solely liable to the original plaintiff and fails to provide any factual basis for the claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Rambo, Chief Judge
Yes, a third-party complaint that alleges the third-party defendant is solely liable to the original plaintiff and lacks factual allegations violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14 and 8. The court reasoned that Rule 14 impleader is strictly for claims of secondary or derivative liability, where the third-party defendant may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the original plaintiff's claim. A defendant cannot use Rule 14 to assert that another party is the correct defendant or is solely liable to the plaintiff; this is a defense that should be raised in the defendant's answer. The court further reasoned that the complaint violated Rule 8 because it contained no factual allegations whatsoever, failing to provide fair notice of the claim's basis. It was merely a bare averment of liability, which is insufficient even under the liberal notice pleading standard.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a clear illustration of the proper use and limitations of impleader under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14. It reinforces the critical distinction between a valid claim for derivative liability (e.g., contribution, indemnity) and an improper attempt to substitute a new defendant. The case emphasizes that a defendant's argument that a third party is solely responsible for the plaintiff's injury is a defense, not a basis for a third-party claim. Additionally, the court's analysis of Rule 8 highlights that even under a liberal notice pleading standard, a complaint devoid of any factual allegations fails to provide the required fair notice and cannot survive a motion to dismiss.
