Irwin v. Mascott

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Rule 14 “does not mean that the third-party defendant 1 must be liable to the original plaintiff.”
• noting added delay and complexity weigh against granting motion for 21 leave to file third-party complaint
• “Adding a [third-party] claim to this case would inject facts and legal issues which have nothing whatever to do with Plaintiffs’ claims . . . would prejudice Plaintiffs and certainly not save the court any time.”
• “For impleader to be permitted under Rule 14, the third-party plaintiffs claim must be dependent upon the outcome of the main claim.”
• no express or implied right to contribution or indemnification under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
• no express or implied right to contribution or indemnification under FDCPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).