Lund v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada held that, under NRCP 13(h), a defendant may add new parties to a counterclaim when at least one original party is included and the proposed parties satisfy the joinder requirements of NRCP 19 or 20. The court concluded that the district court erred by treating the claims as third-party claims under NRCP 14 and directed it to vacate its dismissal order and reconsider the counterclaims. The court declined to order reinstatement because the record lacked briefing on the NRCP 19 and 20 requirements.

Holdings

1. Under NRCP 13(h), a defendant may add new parties to an action through a counterclaim when at least one original party is included in the counterclaim and the additional parties satisfy the joinder requirements of NRCP 19 or NRCP 20.
2. NRCP 14 was not the appropriate procedural vehicle because Lund sought recovery for his own independent injuries, not indemnity for Walsh's claims against him; NRCP 13(h), rather than third-party practice, applied.
3. Mandamus relief was warranted to correct the district court's manifest abuse of discretion in concluding that it lacked authority to consider additional counterclaim defendants under NRCP 13(h), but relief was denied insofar as Lund sought reinstatement of the counterclaims without an NRCP 19 or 20 determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether NRCP 13(h) permits a defendant to add new parties to an action through a counterclaim when at least one original party is included in the counterclaim.
2. Whether the additional counterclaim defendants could be joined under NRCP 19 or NRCP 20.
3. Whether mandamus relief was appropriate to correct the district court's refusal to apply the NRCP 13(h) analysis.

Disposition

writ_granted