## Facts

- Multiple plaintiffs alleged they suffered food poisoning after eating ham served at a restaurant operated by B/G Foods, Inc.
- The ham was allegedly “Swift Premium Ham” purchased by B/G Foods in a sealed can from Swift & Company shortly before it was served.
- Plaintiffs sued B/G Foods for damages under Minnesota law regulating the sale of unwholesome or poisonous food.
- Before answering, B/G Foods obtained an ex parte order impleading Swift as a third-party defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14.
- B/G Foods alleged it was not negligent and that any contamination was attributable to Swift, seeking indemnity for any judgment plaintiffs might obtain against B/G Foods.
- Swift moved to vacate the impleader order, arguing (i) plaintiffs had not sued Swift, and (ii) under Minnesota law B/G Foods had no present indemnity or contribution claim because it had not paid any judgment or sustained a loss.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may implead a third party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 when the defendant’s indemnity or contribution rights under applicable state law have not yet matured through payment or loss.
2. Whether Rule 14’s “may be liable” standard permits joinder of a third party whose liability to the defendant is contingent on the defendant’s future liability to the plaintiff.

## Decision

- The court denied Swift’s motion to vacate the ex parte impleader order.
- The court permitted Swift to remain as a third-party defendant under Rule 14.
- The court held that Rule 14 allows impleader of a party who may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim, even if an independent state-law indemnity action would be premature absent payment.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 is a procedural mechanism allowing a defendant to bring into the case a third party who may be liable over to the defendant for the plaintiff’s claim.
- Rule 14 may be used even when state substantive law would not yet permit a separate indemnity or contribution suit because the defendant has not paid a judgment or otherwise sustained a loss.
- Impleader under Rule 14 does not create or expand substantive indemnity or contribution rights; it accelerates their adjudication in the same action.
- Courts may manage proceedings and structure judgments to avoid prejudice from contingent third-party liability while preserving the limits imposed by state substantive law.
- Consolidating the plaintiff’s claim and contingent indemnity issues in one action serves efficiency by reducing duplicative litigation and delay.

## Conclusion

The court allowed impleader because Rule 14 permits joining a third party who may be liable to the defendant for the plaintiff’s claim, even though the defendant’s state-law right to indemnity had not yet accrued through payment, so long as the procedure does not alter substantive rights.


Jeub v. B/G Foods, Inc., 2 F.R.D. 238 (D. Minn. 1942)