Opinion
No. 8:98CV89.
April 2000.
ORDER
This matter is before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the general order of referral on plaintiff's motion for leave to assert a cross-claim against third-party defendants Weyerhaeuser, Inc. and Georgia Pacific Corp. (#48). The court has not received a response in opposition to the motion and, for the reasons explained below, finds that the motion should be granted.
The assertion of cross-claims is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 13, which provides:
(g) Cross-Claim Against Co-Party. A pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein or relating to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant.
Plaintiff's brief, and the proposed cross-claims submitted in conjunction with this motion, satisfactorily demonstrate that the subject of the proposed cross-claims are substantially related to the subject matter of the original action.
The term "co-party" is not defined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules are to "be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Under the facts alleged in this case, the court finds that plaintiff, Weyerhaeuser, Inc. and Georgia Pacific Corp. are "co-parties" within the meaning of Rule 13(g).See Georgia Ports Auth. v. Construzioni Meccaniche Industriali Genovesi, S.P.A., 119 F.R.D. 693 (S.D.Ga. 1988) (court construed "co-party" to mean any party that is not an opposing party, allowing original defendant to assert cross-claim against third-party defendant); accord Earle M. Jorgenson Co. v. T.I. United States, Ltd., 133 F.R.D. 472 (E.D.Pa. 1991) (allowing original defendant to file cross-claim against third-party defendant for indemnity and contribution); Mauney v. Imperial Delivery Servs., Inc., 865 F. Supp. 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Cf.Augustin v. Mughal, 521 F.2d 1215, 1216 (8th Cir. 1975) ("A cross-claim is one asserted against a co-party, whereas a counterclaim is brought against an opposing party."); Federal Land Bank of St. Louis v. Cupples Brother, 116 F.R.D. 63 (E.D.Ark. 1987) ("Co-parties are persons on the same side in the principal litigation.").
The court also finds that plaintiff has shown good cause for modifying the progression order to allow it to assert cross-claims against Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific, and that filing the proposed cross-claims at this time will not unfairly prejudice any party or adversely affect the orderly progression of this case.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to assert a cross-claim against third-party defendants Weyerhaeuser, Inc. and Georgia Pacific Corp. (#48) is granted.