Opinion ID: 2463734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Adding new parties to an action through a counterclaim

Text: NRCP 13 governs the filing of permissive and compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims. [3] Under NRCP 13(h), [p]ersons other than those made parties to the original action may be made parties to a counterclaim or cross-claim in accordance with the provisions of Rules 19 and 20. Courts typically construe Rule 13(h) liberally in an effort to avoid multiplicity of litigation, minimize the circuity of actions, and foster judicial economy. 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane Federal Practice and Procedure § 1434 (2010) (footnotes omitted); accord NRCP 1 (providing that Nevada's rules of civil procedure shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action). Federal courts that have interpreted NRCP 13(h)'s federal counterpart have concluded that a counterclaim or cross-claim brought under the rule must include at least one existing party, and thus, may not be brought solely against an unnamed party. [4] See, e.g., AllTech Communications, LLC v. Brothers, 601 F.Supp.2d 1255, 1260 (N.D.Okla.2008) (applying FRCP 13(h)); Microsoft Corp. v. Ion Technologies Corp., 484 F.Supp.2d 955, 965 (D.Minn.2007) (same); Raytheon Aircraft Cred. Corp. v. Pal Air Intern., 923 F.Supp. 1408, 1414 (D.Kan. 1996) (same); see also Johansen v. U.S., 392 F.Supp.2d 56, 59-60 (D.Mass.2005) (permitting an FRCP 13(h) counterclaim against a nonparty because the same counterclaim was already asserted against a party); Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev. ___, ___, 228 P.3d 453, 456 (2010) (explaining that federal caselaw involving the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides persuasive authority for this court in reviewing the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure). In addition, NRCP 13(h) expressly permits the joinder of additional nonparties so long as the nonparty can be joined in accordance with the provisions of Rules 19 and 20. NRCP 19 and 20 set forth the procedure for mandatory and permissive joinder of parties, respectively. See Dutchess Bus. Servs. v. State, Bd. of Pharm., 124 Nev. 701, 710, 191 P.3d 1159, 1165 (2008). NRCP 19 requires joinder of all parties necessary for an action's just adjudication. NRCP 19(a)(1)-(2). NRCP 20(a) authorizes permissive joinder of a defendant against whom a right to relief is asserted in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or of fact common to all these persons will arise in the action. In the present matter, Walsh, the original plaintiff, was named as a counterdefendant in each of Lund's counterclaims. Thus, as long as Mark, Rochell, Chaves, and Gross can be joined under either NRCP 19 or 20 as additional counterclaim defendants, they may face Lund's counterclaims brought under NRCP 13(h). AllTech Communications, 601 F.Supp.2d at 1260; Microsoft Corp., 484 F.Supp.2d at 965; Raytheon Aircraft, 923 F.Supp. at 1414. While the next analytical step should be to address Lund's counterclaims within the context of NRCP 19 and 20, because the parties failed to provide any briefing on this point, we decline to reach this issue. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest, 122 Nev. 317, 330 n. 38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n. 38 (2006) (noting that this court need not consider an issue not cogently argued or supported by salient authority). Our review of the documents before this court reveals that the district court was under the impression that Lund should have filed a third-party complaint, under NRCP 14, instead of filing counterclaims pursuant to NRCP 13(h). This conclusion was incorrect. Moseley v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 654, 662-68, 188 P.3d 1136, 1142-46 (2008) (explaining that this court reviews the district court's interpretation of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure de novo, even when that interpretation is challenged through a petition for extraordinary relief). The third-party practice rule, NRCP 14, is reserved for claims based on an indemnity theory. [5] NRCP 14; Reid v. Royal Insurance Co., 80 Nev. 137, 140, 390 P.2d 45, 46-47 (1964). In other words, under NRCP 14, [a] defendant is permitted to defend the case and at the same time assert his [or her] right of indemnity against the party ultimately responsible for the damage. Reid, 80 Nev. at 140-41, 390 P.2d at 47. A review of Lund's counterclaims makes clear that he is seeking recovery for his independent injuries, which he claims were wrongfully caused by Walsh as a counterdefendant and Mark, Rochell, Chaves, and Gross as additional counterclaim defendants. He is not seeking indemnity for Walsh's claims against him. Thus, NRCP 13, rather than NRCP 14, is applicable to this case and the appropriate means for relief was the assertion of counterclaims, not a third-party complaint. Consequently, the district court erred when it concluded that it lacked the authority to allow Lund to add parties as additional counterclaim defendants under NRCP 13(h).