## Facts

- After a May 24, 2005 crash of a Cessna R182 aircraft killed pilot Alfred W. Zadow and passenger Donna M. Zadow, the executor of their estates sued multiple aviation-related entities for negligence tied to the aircraft’s design, manufacture, and maintenance.
- KS Gleitlager USA, Inc., an original defendant, impleaded the United States as a third-party defendant, alleging federal air traffic controllers negligently handled the aircraft’s distress situation and contributed to the crash.
- Superior Air Parts, Inc., also an original defendant, filed a pleading labeled a “cross-claim” against the United States seeking contribution based on the same alleged air-traffic-controller negligence.
- The United States moved to dismiss Superior’s cross-claim on the ground that Rule 13(g) permits cross-claims only against a “coparty,” and an original defendant and a third-party defendant are not coparties.

## Issues

1. Whether an original defendant may assert a Rule 13(g) cross-claim directly against an existing third-party defendant on the theory that they are “coparties.”
2. Whether the United States’ presence in the action solely as a third-party defendant prevents Rule 13(g) from being used as the procedural vehicle for a contribution claim by another original defendant.

## Decision

- The court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss Superior’s cross-claim.
- The court held that Superior (an original defendant) and the United States (a third-party defendant) were not “coparties” within the meaning of Rule 13(g).
- Because Rule 13(g) did not authorize the asserted cross-claim in this procedural posture, the contribution claim against the United States was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 13(g) authorizes cross-claims only by one party against a “coparty,” when the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action (or a counterclaim).
- “Coparty” in Rule 13(g) is determined by procedural alignment in the main action; parties in different roles (original defendant vs. third-party defendant) are not coparties merely because their alleged conduct relates to the same occurrence.
- Joinder of a third-party defendant under Rule 14 does not, by itself, expand Rule 13(g) to permit cross-claims by original defendants against that third-party defendant.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed an original defendant’s attempted Rule 13(g) cross-claim for contribution against a third-party defendant, ruling that the parties were not “coparties” under the Federal Rules and that cross-claim practice cannot be used to reach a third-party defendant solely because the claims arise from the same accident.


Luyster v. Textron, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)