## Facts

- An Alabama poultry farmer sued Latco, CTB, and others in state court, alleging improper design and construction of chicken houses, including leaky roofs.
- The plaintiff asserted Alabama state-law claims for breach of contract, fraud, negligence, wantonness, and intentional interference with business relations.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Latco filed a third-party complaint against Illinois Tool Works, Inc. (ITW) and J & S Tool and Fastener (J & S), alleging that defective nails and nail guns caused the roof leaks.
- Latco sought relief under state-law theories including common-law indemnity, contending that any liability Latco owed the plaintiff would be attributable, in whole or part, to ITW’s and J & S’s products.
- ITW moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing (1) impleader was improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 because liability was not derivative and (2) the impleader was untimely.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s third-party complaint alleging indemnity and related theories based on defective products causing the same harm at issue states a proper Rule 14(a) impleader claim (derivative liability for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim).
2. Whether the third-party complaint should be dismissed at the pleading stage as untimely under Rule 14(a) timing requirements or related timing defenses.

## Decision

- The court denied ITW’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held the third-party complaint satisfied Rule 14(a) because it alleged ITW and J & S may be liable over to Latco for all or part of the plaintiff’s recovery, making the asserted liability contingent on Latco’s liability.
- The court declined to dismiss on timeliness grounds, finding dismissal unwarranted at that stage and treating more detailed timing defenses as premature given the need for fuller factual development.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 14(a) permits impleader only when the third-party defendant “is or may be liable” to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim; the third-party liability must be derivative or secondary, not an independent claim.
- Indemnity-type allegations that the third party caused the same loss for which the defendant may be liable can satisfy Rule 14’s derivative-liability requirement.
- Courts have discretion to allow impleader after Rule 14’s default period, guided by efficiency and whether impleader would cause undue delay or unfair prejudice.
- Timeliness and limitations-based objections to impleader are often better addressed after factual development rather than by dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Latco to proceed with third-party claims against the alleged nail and nail-gun manufacturer and supplier because the claims plausibly sought liability over (including common-law indemnity) for the same damages asserted by the plaintiff, and the court found no basis to dismiss the impleader as untimely at the motion-to-dismiss stage.


Coates v. CTB, Inc., 173 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (M.D. Ala. 2001)