Court Opinion

ID: 5164519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 03:20:23.888734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:57.685451
License: Public Domain

[1] ORDER
[2] Original jurisdiction is assumed. The writ of prohibition is denied. Pursuant to 12 O.S. 1991 § 2014[12-2014](A), leave to file a third-party petition more than ten (10) days after service of an original answer must be obtained by motion upon notice to allparties to the action. Third-party defendants sought to be brought in by the third-party petition are not parties to the action until the third-party petition is filed. Because the ten-day period for impleading third-party defendants is not intended for such party's benefit, the third-party defendant cannot object if the impleading is filed more than ten days after service of the answer. The 10-day limit on impleading third parties is not to be viewed as a jurisdictional barrier. 12 O.S. 1991 § 2014[12-2014](A); See G. Fraser, "Counterclaims, Cross-Claims, 
Third-Party Claims under the Oklahoma Pleading Code," 39Okla.L.Rev. 1, 18 (1986). See also, West v. Hawker,237 N.W.2d 802, 807 (Iowa 1976); 6 Wright Miller, Federal Practice Procedure, § 1455, p. 434 (West 1990).
[3] We note that none of the parties to the action, that is, those who were required by 12 O.S. 1991 § 2014[12-2014](A) to be notified of a parties request for leave to file a third party petition, made any objection to the filing of the petition.
[4] OPALA, C.J., HODGES, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.
[5] SIMMS, J., dissents. *Page 750