Abstract

Every federal court that has addressed the issue has held that Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure bars a defendant who defaults and fails to file a timely answer to a complaint from later filing a transactionally related claim in a subsequent suit. This Article argues that the federal courts' interpretation of Rule 13(a) is fundamentally wrong. The interpretation appears to be rooted in docket-clearing interests, rather than the text of Rule 13(a) itself or the history and policies underlying the rule. The history of preclusion law shows that defendants traditionally have been accorded the autonomy to bring their claims in the forum of their choice. The federal rules drafters carved out a narrow exception to the traditional rule and required defendants who file answers to assert any transactionally related claim they wished to pursue. The rule on its face, however, applies this exception only when defendants actually file an answer. The decisions applying the rule to defaulting defendants not only ignore the clear language of the rule, they also fail to serve the rule's purpose while needlessly penalizing defendants who unintentionally default, as well as defendants who wish to pursue their own claims elsewhere. These decisions are either poorly reasoned or fail even to discuss the issue at all, and they should now be abandoned.

How to Cite