HOFFMAN
v.
LAWRENCE WAREHOUSE CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant in a breach of contract action sought permission to file a cross-claim against a non-party (Hollywood Builders Supply, Inc.) and bring that corporation into the suit. The court denied the motion, holding that under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.13(7) and 1.13(8), cross-claims can only be asserted against co-parties, and non-parties may be brought in only when necessary for complete relief on a proper cross-claim—not as a substitute for federal-style impleader, which Florida had deliberately omitted from its rules.
A cross-claim under Florida Rule 1.13(7) may be asserted only against a co-party to the original action. Non-parties may be brought in under Rule 1.13(8) only when their presence is required for complete relief in determining a proper cross-claim. Florida's rules do not provide for third-party practice or impleader as do the Federal Rules, so the defendant's motion was properly denied.
“A cross-claim may be asserted properly only against a co-party under our state rule 1.13(7) or under federal rule 13(g) ; and, when (and only when) a cross-claim is so properly asserted, may one not a party to the original action be brought in, under state rule 1.13(8) or federal rule 13(h), if his presence is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of the cross-claim.”
Establishes the limitation that cross-claims must be against co-parties and the conditions under which non-parties may be added.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Lawrence Warehouse Co. sought to file a cross-claim against Hollywood Builders Supply, Inc., a non-party, and to bring that corporation into…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
The court has heard and considered the defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-claim against Hollywood Builders Supply, Inc. and to bring such corporation into the action as an additional party.
*163The motion is predicated on an erroneous construction of rules 1.13(7) and 1.13(8) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which were copied from, and should be given the same construction as, rules 13 (g) and 13 (h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A cross-claim may be asserted properly only against a co-party under our state rule 1.13(7) or under federal rule 13(g) ; and, when (and only when) a cross-claim is so properly asserted, may one not a party to the original action be brought in, under state rule 1.13(8) or federal rule 13(h), if his presence is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of the cross-claim.
Neither our state rules, 1.13(7) and 1.13(8), nor the federal rules, 13(g) and 13(h), should be confused, however, with impleader (third-party practice). Impleader, or third-party practice, is provided for by rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the draftsmen of our state civil procedural code (although much of the federal system was adopted) purposefully omitted from our state rules the provisions of federal rule 14. See Moore’s Federal Practice (Second Edition), page 101 (and cases cited) and 1956 Cumulative Supplement, page 28 (and case cited).
Personally, I think we should have in our state procedural rules provisions, such as are found in the federal rules, for impleader or third-party practice, but since we do not have, the order the entry of which the defendant seeks cannot be properly entered; and, therefore, the mentioned motion is denied.