## Facts

- Mildred Barab alleged she was injured after slipping on a doormat at an inn operated by Menford and sued Menford for negligence.
- Menford filed a third-party complaint against Channel Home Centers, Inc., seeking indemnity on the theory that Channel sold Menford the doormat.
- Channel denied selling the doormat to Menford and later asserted that Joy Plastics, Inc. was the doormat’s manufacturer/supplier.
- Channel had no documentary records showing it bought or sold the doormat and asserted no prior relationship with Joy concerning the product.
- After discovery deadlines had passed and trial was approaching, Channel moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) to file a third-party complaint against Joy.
- The motion was unopposed, but the court evaluated Rule 14’s requirements and the effect on case management.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 14(a) permits a third-party defendant to implead a nonparty based on allegations that the nonparty is the true tortfeasor and solely liable to the plaintiff, absent facts showing derivative or secondary liability to the impleading party.
2. Whether the court should deny impleader due to lateness and likely trial delay from adding a new party requiring additional discovery.

## Decision

- The court denied Channel’s motion to implead Joy Plastics, Inc.
- The court found Channel alleged, at most, that Joy was directly liable to the plaintiff, not liable over to Channel for any portion of Channel’s potential liability.
- The court also concluded that adding Joy late in the case would delay trial because Joy would require additional discovery.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 14(a) allows impleader only of a nonparty “who is or may be liable” to the impleading party for all or part of the claim against it.
- Impleader requires allegations supporting derivative or secondary liability (e.g., indemnity, contribution, subrogation), not merely that the proposed third-party defendant may be liable directly to the plaintiff.
- A third-party complaint is improper when it functions only to shift blame by asserting that someone else is solely responsible for the plaintiff’s injury.
- Courts may deny impleader, particularly when sought late, where joinder would disrupt scheduling and require significant additional discovery.

## Conclusion

The court refused to allow Channel to implead Joy under Rule 14(a) because Channel’s allegations, if true, would defeat Menford’s indemnity claim against Channel rather than establish Joy’s liability to Channel, and adding Joy near trial would likely cause undue delay.


Barab v. Menford, 98 F.R.D. 455 (E.D. Pa. 1983)