Crossclaim

Civil procedure in the United States
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Doctrines of civil procedure Jurisdiction Subject-matter jurisdiction Diversity jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction Removal jurisdiction Venue Change of venue Forum non conveniens Pleadings Service of process Complaint Cause of action Case Information Statement Class action Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Demurrer Answer Affirmative defense Reply Counterclaim Crossclaim Joinder Indispensable party Impleader Interpleader Intervention Other Motions Pre-trial procedure Discovery Initial Conference Interrogatories Depositions Request for Admissions Request for production Resolution without trial Default judgment Summary judgment Voluntary dismissal Involuntary dismissal Settlement Trial Parties Plaintiff Defendant Pro Se Jury Voir dire Burden of proof Judgment Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) Renewed JMOL (JNOV) Motion to set aside judgment New trial Remedy Injunction Damages Attorney's fees American rule English rule Declaratory judgment Appeal Mandamus Certiorari
This box: view · talk · edit

A crossclaim is a claim asserted between codefendants or coplaintiffs in a case and that relates to the subject of the original claim or counterclaim Black's Law Dictionary.

U.S. Federal courts

In the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this is codified in Rule 13(g). In the federal rules, a crossclaim is proper if it relates to a matter of the original jurisdiction. Proper jurisdiction is determined by a finding of whether the suit that is being initiated arises from the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the suit.

The policy for allowing crossclaims is that they promote efficiency and consistency. Furthermore, the same underlying facts will be litigated on the main claim as well as on the crossclaim preserving efficiency in the judicial system by resolving multiple claims that might arise between the parties as opposed to courts trying each claim individually and re-litigating the same facts. Furthermore, this will prevent inconsistent verdicts that might harm the public perception of the judicial process. Finally, because crossclaims are not mandatory, they allow the moving party the opportunity to sue later. The plaintiff is the master of his complaint, and this also holds true in crossclaims.