Opinion
No. 2:06-cv-01612-MCE-DAD, Related with: No. 2:07-cv-01630-MCE-DAD, No. 2:07-cv-01934-MCE-DAD, No. 2:07-cv-01943-MCE-DAD.
October 27, 2008
ORDER
On September 3, 2008, Defendants and Cross-Claimants Tu Phouc Nguyen and Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company ("Defendants") filed a Motion seeking leave to file additional cross-claims, or alternatively for leave to amend its answers to state cross-claims in these various consolidated and related proceedings. While Defendants did file a cross-claim within their answer to the lead Soto case, they have not filed any other cross-claims in the other consolidated and/or related proceedings. No opposition has been filed to Defendants' request that they be permitted leave to assert such cross-claims in those other actions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g) permits parties to an action to assert affirmative relief against other parties by way of cross-claim. "A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action. . . . The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant." Id. Cross-claims help avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits and inconsistent adjudications on related claims.Donovan v. Robbins, 588 F. Supp. 1268 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
Further references to "Rule" or "Rules" are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
Because cross-claims should ordinarily be asserted through answer as opposed to a separate pleading (see Rule 7(a), the Court will construe Defendants' Motion as a request to amend their answers in this matter to include cross-claims. This Court has power to control the adjudication of cross-claims in order to promote the prompt disposition of claims and to prevent unnecessary relitigation. Glens Falls Indem. Co. v. United States, 229 F.2d 370, 373-74 (9th Cir. 1955). In addition, Rule 15(a)(2) allows the court to freely grant leave to amend a pleading "when justice so requires." The Court determines that such leave is appropriate here.
Defendants are accordingly granted leave of the Court allowing them to file and serve amended answers in these consolidated/related cases setting forth their proposed cross-claim. Said amended answers shall be filed not later than ten (10) days following the date of this Order.
Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs in accordance with E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).
IT IS SO ORDERED.