GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT M. HEWITT, APPELLEE
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.
General Dynamics Corporation appealed an order denying its motion to be dismissed from Robert M. Hewitt's counterclaim and cross-claim. The court affirmed the trial judge's decision to join General Dynamics as a party defendant, finding the joinder proper under Florida's civil procedure rules permitting necessary parties to be brought in when complete relief requires their presence.
The trial court properly joined General Dynamics as a party defendant under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(h), which permits the court to order necessary parties brought in as defendants when their presence is required for granting complete relief on a counterclaim or cross-claim. However, the order should be modified to clarify that General Dynamics was joined only as a defendant to the counterclaim or cross-complaint, not as a defendant to the original cause of action.
“When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants as provided in these rules if jurisdiction of them can be obtained and their joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the action.”
Establishes the legal standard under Rule 1.170(h) governing joinder of necessary parties in counterclaims and cross-claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert M. Hewitt was a defendant in the original action. Hewitt filed a pleading containing an answer, counterclaim, cross-claims, and third-party com…
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 Joinder Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal by General Dynamics Corporation is from an order which rejected appellant’s motion to be dismissed as a defendant to the counterclaim and cross-claim of Robert M. Hewitt, and which order made the appellant a party defendant to the cause. In the iatter respect the order provided:
“Ordered and Adjudged that the defendant General Dynamics Corporation be, and the same is hereby, made a party defendant to this cause of action, as provided by the Rules, and the complaint by the said Robert M. Hewitt against General Dynamics Corporation shall stand pursuant to Rules 1.170 and 1.210; and it is further
“Ordered and Adjudged that General Dynamics Corporation be, and it is hereby, allowed 20 days within which time to answer Counts Two and Three.”
On viewing the record and having heard argument we conclude that the trial court was not in error in entering the foregoing order. Hewitt was one of the defendants in the cause. He filed a pleading entitled “Answer, counterclaim, Cross-claims and Third Party Complaint.” In counts 2 and 3 thereof he stated allegations upon which he sought relief against parties to the cause and against the appellant, not theretofore a party. We agree with the trial judge that the joinder of appellant as a party defendant to the counterclaim and cross-claim was proper and permissible under subsection “(h)” of rule 1.170 R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., which provides as follows:
“When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants as provided in these rules if jurisdiction of them can be obtained and their joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the action.”
It is noted that the trial court fixed a time within which appellant could answer counts 2 and 3 of the Hewitt counterclaim or cross-complaint. Thus the trial court recognized that only those two counts of the Hewitt complaint concerned the appellant, but the court’s order was that the appellant was “made a defendant to this cause of action.” That quoted portion of the order should be modified to provide that the join-der of General Dynamics Corporation in the cause is only as defendant to the counterclaim or cross-complaint of Hewitt, and as so modified the challenged order is affirmed.
Affirmed.