Party Practice Toolkit: Third-Party Complaints, Intervention Motions, and Joinder Analyses

Summary. This toolkit collects the working papers of federal party practice, each introduced by its purpose, its owner, and when to use it, and each followed by drafting commentary tied to the governing rule, statute, or case. It begins with a joinder analysis worksheet and citizenship matrix that every new matter should start with, and a tender-of-defense letter to send before impleading anyone. The defendant's templates cover a Rule 19 motion outline, a third-party complaint, a motion for leave to file one late, crossclaim and Rule 13(h) paragraphs, and a Rule 21 severance motion outline. The intervention templates cover a motion to intervene with a memorandum outline, a proposed answer in intervention, a proposed order with conditions, and an opposition outline. The stakeholder's templates are an interpleader complaint skeleton and a proposed order for deposit, injunction, and discharge, and a post-removal joinder opposition and party deadline tracker close the set. A single fictional cold-storage dispute runs through every template.

Party practice is paperwork with jurisdictional consequences. A third-party complaint that pleads the wrong theory gets struck; a motion to intervene without a proposed pleading gets denied; an interpleader complaint that forgets the deposit leaves the court without jurisdiction to enjoin anyone. The templates below are built to avoid those failures, and each comes with the authority that explains why it is drafted the way it is.

How to use this toolkit

Each template states its purpose, its owner, and when to use it, then gives the template and a drafting commentary. Bracketed text in capitals is to be filled in. Use Template 1 on every matter; it feeds every other template. The doctrine behind the templates is in Adding Parties to a Federal Lawsuit: Joinder, Intervention, Impleader, and Interpleader; the order of tasks is in Party Joinder and Third-Party Practice Checklist: A Practical Checklist; and the step-by-step intervention narrative is in Intervening in a Federal Case or Opposing Intervention: A Practical Guide.

The running example. Orchard Valley Cold Chain, Inc., a Colorado corporation headquartered in Denver, operates a refrigerated distribution center. In late 2025 its ammonia refrigeration system failed during a heat event, spoiling $2.3 million in customers' produce and dairy. Orchard Valley sues its maintenance contractor, Holloway Mechanical, LLC (whose two members live in Kansas), in the District of Colorado for negligence and breach of a service contract, invoking diversity. Holloway believes a defective compressor valve made by Vantor Compressor Corp. (a Delaware corporation headquartered in Illinois) caused the failure, and that a Denver controls subcontractor, Summit Controls, LLC (members in Colorado), misprogrammed the alarm. Holloway's liability insurer, Pinecrest Specialty Insurance Co. (a Nebraska company), has a $1 million limit and faces claims from Orchard Valley and from Greenleaf Grocers, Inc., a Utah grocery chain whose inventory was lost. Front Range Bank, a Colorado bank, holds a security interest in Orchard Valley's receivables, including any recovery in the lawsuit.

Template 1: Joinder analysis worksheet and citizenship matrix

Purpose: identify every potential party, test each against the joinder rules and jurisdiction, and record the decision. Owner: lead counsel, with a paralegal tracing entity membership. When to use: at intake, before any complaint, answer, removal, or third-party complaint is filed, and again whenever the lineup changes.

Part A: Citizenship matrix

Part B: Joinder decision grid

Drafting commentary. The matrix exists because citizenship errors are fatal and invisible. Corporations are citizens of their state of incorporation and their nerve center, Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010); unincorporated entities take every member's citizenship, Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 577 U.S. 378 (2016), so the "Members" column must be traced until it reaches individuals or corporations. Record the source and date, because citizenship is fixed at filing, Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004). The § 1367(b) column is there to catch the Owen Equipment problem in advance: a plaintiff's claim against a nondiverse party joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 is outside supplemental jurisdiction in a diversity-only case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b); Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978). Here, the grid tells Orchard Valley on day one that it cannot sue Summit Controls in this action.

Template 2: Tender-of-defense and indemnity demand letter

Purpose: put indemnitors and their insurers on notice, demand defense and indemnity, and create the record for a later third-party claim. Owner: defendant's counsel. When to use: immediately after service of the complaint, and in any event before filing a third-party complaint.

[LETTERHEAD]
[DATE]
VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT COURIER

[INDEMNITOR NAME]
[ADDRESS]
Attn: [GENERAL COUNSEL]

cc: [INDEMNITOR'S LIABILITY INSURER, IF KNOWN]

Re: Tender of defense and demand for indemnity
    [CAPTION], No. [CASE NUMBER] ([COURT])
    [CONTRACT NAME] dated [DATE], Section [INDEMNITY SECTION]

Dear [NAME]:

We represent [DEFENDANT] in the above action, filed [DATE] and served [DATE]. A copy
of the complaint is enclosed. The complaint alleges that [ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY OF
ALLEGATIONS], and seeks damages of at least [AMOUNT].

Section [X] of the [CONTRACT] requires [INDEMNITOR] to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless [DEFENDANT] against claims "[QUOTE OPERATIVE LANGUAGE]." The claims in the
complaint fall within that obligation because [REASON: E.G., THEY ARISE FROM THE
COMPONENT SUPPLIED UNDER THE CONTRACT].

[DEFENDANT] tenders its defense to [INDEMNITOR] and demands indemnity. Please confirm
in writing by [DATE, 10 TO 14 DAYS OUT] whether [INDEMNITOR] accepts the tender, with
or without a reservation of rights, and forward this letter to your insurers.

[DEFENDANT]'s answer is due [DATE]. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1),
[DEFENDANT] may file a third-party complaint without leave within 14 days after serving
its answer. If we do not receive an acceptance by [DATE], [DEFENDANT] intends to file
a third-party complaint for [CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, AND BREACH OF
WARRANTY] in the action.

Please preserve all documents and data relating to [COMPONENT, PROJECT, OR SUBJECT].
Nothing in this letter waives any right or remedy of [DEFENDANT].

Sincerely,
[NAME]

Drafting commentary. A tender letter often avoids impleader altogether; an indemnitor that accepts the defense is cheaper than one fighting from the third-party defendant's table. Set the response deadline inside the Rule 14 window so that a refusal leaves time to file without leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). Check the contract for an arbitration clause before threatening a third-party complaint; if one exists, the claim may belong in arbitration, as discussed in Multiparty and Multicontract Arbitration: Consolidation, Joinder, and the Non-Signatory Problem. For insurance tenders specifically, the Insurance Coverage Toolkit: Placing, Tendering, and Litigating Claims has notice forms. Sample: Holloway tenders to Vantor under its distributor terms; Vantor rejects the tender eight days later.

Template 3: Rule 19 / Rule 12(b)(7) motion outline

Purpose: require joinder of an absent required party, or dismissal if joinder is not feasible. Owner: defendant. When to use: with the first Rule 12 response, or later if facts emerge (the defense is preserved through trial under Rule 12(h)(2), but delay weighs against the movant).

DEFENDANT [NAME]'S MOTION TO JOIN [ABSENT PARTY] UNDER RULE 19,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(7)

I.   Introduction (one paragraph: who is absent, why it matters, what the court
     should order)
II.  Background
     A. The claims and relief sought
     B. [ABSENT PARTY]'s interest: [CONTRACT/PROPERTY/CO-OWNERSHIP/SUBROGATION],
        supported by Declaration of [WITNESS] and Exhibits [X-Y]
III. Legal standard: three-step Rule 19 analysis
IV.  Argument
     A. [ABSENT PARTY] is a required party under Rule 19(a)(1)
        1. Complete relief cannot be accorded without it (19(a)(1)(A)), and/or
        2. Its interest would be impaired as a practical matter (19(a)(1)(B)(i)),
           and/or
        3. [DEFENDANT] faces a substantial risk of double or inconsistent
           obligations (19(a)(1)(B)(ii))
     B. Joinder is feasible: [ABSENT PARTY] is subject to service at [BASIS] and its
        joinder will not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction because [CITIZENSHIP]
        -- OR --
        Joinder is not feasible because [DESTROYS DIVERSITY / IMMUNITY / NO
        PERSONAL JURISDICTION]
     C. [IF NOT FEASIBLE] In equity and good conscience the action should not
        proceed (19(b))
        1. Prejudice to the absent party and to [DEFENDANT]
        2. No protective provision or shaped relief can avoid it
        3. A judgment without [ABSENT PARTY] would be inadequate
        4. Plaintiff has an adequate alternative forum: [STATE COURT/OTHER]
V.   Conclusion: order joinder within [21] days, or dismiss without prejudice

Drafting commentary. Courts apply Rule 19 pragmatically, weighing real rather than theoretical prejudice. Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968); Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. Do not use this template to add a co-tortfeasor: joint tortfeasors are not required parties. Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (1990). The strongest Rule 19 motions involve parties to a contract being rescinded or construed, co-owners of property or patents, and partially subrogated insurers, United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366 (1949). Where the absent party is a sovereign with a non-frivolous immunity claim, emphasize Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008). If joining the absent party would destroy diversity, the motion becomes a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff's best response is the availability of protective relief and the absence of an alternative forum. Sample: Holloway does not use this template against Summit Controls, a joint tortfeasor; it uses Template 4 instead.

Template 4: Third-party complaint

Purpose: bring in a nonparty who is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. Owner: defendant as third-party plaintiff. When to use: within 14 days after serving the original answer (no leave needed), or with Template 5 after that.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE [DISTRICT]

[PLAINTIFF],
        Plaintiff,
v.                                              Civil Action No. [NUMBER]
[DEFENDANT],
        Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
[THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT 1] and [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT 2],
        Third-Party Defendants.

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

Third-Party Plaintiff [DEFENDANT] alleges against Third-Party Defendants as follows:

PARTIES
1. [DEFENDANT] is [ENTITY TYPE AND CITIZENSHIP, INCLUDING EACH MEMBER IF AN LLC].
2. [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT 1] is [ENTITY TYPE, STATE OF INCORPORATION, PRINCIPAL
   PLACE OF BUSINESS].
3. [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT 2] is [ENTITY TYPE AND MEMBERS' CITIZENSHIP].

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this Third-Party Complaint under
   28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claims form part of the same case or controversy
   as Plaintiff's claims. [IF APPLICABLE: The Court also has jurisdiction under
   28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because [DEFENDANT] and each Third-Party Defendant are
   citizens of different States and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.]
5. The Court has personal jurisdiction over [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT 1] because
   [SPECIFIC FORUM CONTACTS, OR SERVICE WITHIN 100 MILES UNDER RULE 4(k)(1)(B)].
6. This Third-Party Complaint is timely under Rule 14(a)(1) because [DEFENDANT]
   served its Answer on [DATE] and files this pleading within 14 days
   [OR: pursuant to the Court's Order of [DATE] granting leave].

THE MAIN ACTION
7. Plaintiff alleges that [SUMMARY]. A copy of the Complaint is attached as
   Exhibit A. [DEFENDANT] denies liability, as set forth in its Answer (Exhibit B).
   The allegations below are made in the alternative and without admitting any
   allegation of the Complaint.

FACTS
8-[N]. [CONTRACT FORMATION, SCOPE OF THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT'S WORK OR PRODUCT,
   INDEMNITY AND WARRANTY TERMS, TENDER AND REJECTION (TEMPLATE 2), AND THE FACTS
   CONNECTING THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT TO THE LOSS.]

COUNT I: CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY (against [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT 1])
[N+1]. Section [X] of the [CONTRACT] obligates [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT 1] to defend
   and indemnify [DEFENDANT] against claims arising from [SCOPE].
[N+2]. If [DEFENDANT] is held liable to Plaintiff, that liability will arise from
   [SCOPE], and [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT 1] is liable to [DEFENDANT] for all of it,
   plus defense costs and attorney's fees under Section [X].

COUNT II: CONTRIBUTION (against all Third-Party Defendants)
[N+3]. If [DEFENDANT] is held liable to Plaintiff, which it denies, Third-Party
   Defendants are liable to [DEFENDANT] for contribution in proportion to their
   fault under [STATE CONTRIBUTION STATUTE OR COMMON LAW].

COUNT III: BREACH OF WARRANTY (against [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT 1])
[N+4]. [WARRANTY TERMS; BREACH; DAMAGES TO [DEFENDANT] MEASURED BY ANY LIABILITY
   TO PLAINTIFF AND DEFENSE COSTS.]

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
[DEFENDANT] requests judgment against Third-Party Defendants for (a) all sums that
[DEFENDANT] may be adjudged liable to pay Plaintiff, or a proportionate share;
(b) defense costs and attorney's fees under [CONTRACT]; (c) costs; and (d) such other
relief as is just.

[JURY DEMAND, IF ANY]
[SIGNATURE BLOCK]

Drafting commentary. Every count must be derivative: the third-party defendant "is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). A count alleging that the third-party defendant is liable to the plaintiff instead of the defendant will be struck. United States v. Joe Grasso & Son, Inc., 380 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1967); Stewart v. American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1988). Paragraph 7's "in the alternative" language reconciles the denial of liability in the answer with the conditional claims here, which Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d) permits. Paragraph 4 relies on § 1367(a); subsection (b) restricts only claims by plaintiffs, so a defendant's third-party claim against a nondiverse party is generally within supplemental jurisdiction. Paragraph 5 matters because each third-party defendant needs a basis for personal jurisdiction; Rule 4(k)(1)(B) adds service within 100 miles of the courthouse for Rule 14 parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Serve the summons with copies of all prior pleadings. Expect the third-party defendant to use Rule 14(a)(2)(C) to contest the plaintiff's claim directly. Sample: Holloway files against Vantor (Counts I through III) and Summit Controls (Count II and a subcontract indemnity count) 11 days after serving its answer.

Template 5: Motion for leave to file a third-party complaint

Purpose: obtain leave after the 14-day window. Owner: defendant. When to use: after 14 days from the original answer; add a Rule 16(b)(4) good-cause showing if the scheduling-order deadline for joining parties has passed.

DEFENDANT [NAME]'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

1. Relief requested: leave to file the proposed Third-Party Complaint against
   [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT] attached as Exhibit 1.
2. Timing: [DEFENDANT] served its Answer on [DATE]. [IF AFTER SCHEDULING DEADLINE:
   The Scheduling Order set [DATE] as the deadline to join parties.]
3. Good cause and diligence: [DEFENDANT] learned the facts supporting the claim on
   [DATE] from [SOURCE: E.G., EXPERT INSPECTION, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AT BATES
   RANGE], tendered the defense on [DATE] (Exhibit 2), received a rejection on
   [DATE], and moved [NUMBER] days later.
4. No undue prejudice: discovery closes on [DATE]; [THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT] has
   possessed the relevant documents since [DATE]; [DEFENDANT] proposes [SCHEDULE
   ADJUSTMENT OR NONE].
5. No undue complexity: the third-party claims turn on the same [EVENT/PRODUCT]
   at issue in Plaintiff's claims.
6. The claim is facially meritorious and derivative: [ONE-PARAGRAPH SUMMARY].
7. Conferral: Plaintiff [CONSENTS/OPPOSES/TAKES NO POSITION].
8. Alternatively, if the Court declines leave, [DEFENDANT] requests that denial be
   without prejudice to a separate action.

Drafting commentary. Courts weigh prejudice to the plaintiff, delay, complexity, and merit, and they enforce scheduling orders: once the joinder deadline passes, the movant must also show good cause and diligence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The structure mirrors the good-cause showing for late amendments in Amendment Toolkit: Redlined Pleadings, Rule 16 Good Cause Showings, and Futility Oppositions. Item 8 matters: a denial of leave to implead does not bar a separate indemnity or contribution action, which often accrues on payment. Attach the proposed pleading so the court can assess merit.

Template 6: Crossclaim and Rule 13(h) counterclaim-joinder paragraphs

Purpose: assert claims against coparties, and add nonparties to a counterclaim. Owner: defendant. When to use: in the answer, or later by amendment.

CROSSCLAIM AGAINST CO-DEFENDANT [NAME]
1. This crossclaim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject
   matter of the original action, namely [EVENT]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(g).
2. If [CROSSCLAIMANT] is held liable to Plaintiff, [CO-DEFENDANT] is or may be
   liable to [CROSSCLAIMANT] for all or part of that liability because [BASIS:
   INDEMNITY CLAUSE, CONTRIBUTION, ALLOCATION OF FAULT].
3. [CROSSCLAIMANT] demands judgment against [CO-DEFENDANT] for [RELIEF].

COUNTERCLAIM AND JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT
1. [DEFENDANT] asserts this Counterclaim against Plaintiff [NAME] and, under
   Rule 13(h) and Rule 20(a)(2), against [NEW PARTY], because the right to relief
   against each arises out of the same transaction, [DESCRIBE], and common
   questions of fact include [LIST].
2. Jurisdiction over the claim against [NEW PARTY]: [BASIS; CONFIRM DIVERSITY OR
   SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION].
3. [COUNTS]

Drafting commentary. Crossclaims run only against coparties and must arise from the same transaction or relate to property in the action; they are permissive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(g). Rule 13(h) adds parties to a counterclaim or crossclaim under Rules 19 and 20, and is the right tool when the new party's liability is direct (for example, the plaintiff's parent company that co-signed the contract), not derivative. Supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(b) restricts claims by plaintiffs, so a defendant's Rule 13(h) claim against a nondiverse new party is often within supplemental jurisdiction, but confirm the claim forms part of the same case or controversy. For answer-stage drafting, see Responsive Pleading Toolkit: Answer Templates, Affirmative Defense Libraries, and Counterclaim Outlines.

Template 7: Rule 21 motion to sever or drop misjoined parties

Purpose: separate claims against misjoined defendants or plaintiffs, or drop a party. Owner: defendant (occasionally a plaintiff seeking to drop a nondiverse dispensable party). When to use: early in the case, after checking limitations and cost.

MOTION TO SEVER AND DROP MISJOINED DEFENDANTS UNDER RULES 20 AND 21

I.   Relief: sever claims against Defendants [LIST] and dismiss them without
     prejudice; alternatively, order separate trials under Rules 20(b) and 42(b).
II.  The Complaint fails Rule 20(a)(2)
     A. No same transaction or series: [EACH DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT IS INDEPENDENT:
        DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, DATES, CUSTOMERS, CHANNELS]
     B. Common questions do not cure the absence of a common transaction
     C. [PATENT CASES] 35 U.S.C. § 299(b) bars joinder based solely on alleged
        infringement of the same patent
     D. [DOE OR MASS-DEFENDANT CASES] Participation in the same swarm or marketplace
        at different times is not a single transaction
III. Prejudice and confusion: [JURY CONFUSION; DIFFERENT DEFENSES; EVIDENCE
     ADMISSIBLE AGAINST ONE BUT NOT OTHERS]
IV.  Remedy: severance and dismissal without prejudice is the Rule 21 remedy;
     misjoinder is not a ground for dismissing the action
V.   [IF RELEVANT] Severed claims should be transferred to [DISTRICT] under
     28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

Drafting commentary. Courts read "series of transactions" through a logical-relationship test, Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974), so the motion must show genuinely independent conduct. In patent cases, cite 35 U.S.C. § 299 and In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). For Doe defendants in file-sharing cases, cite AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The remedy section must track Fed. R. Civ. P. 21: misjoinder "is not a ground for dismissing an action." Rule 21 also lets a court drop a dispensable nondiverse party to save jurisdiction. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989). Severed claims become separate actions and can be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Before filing, ask whether severance actually helps: separate cases may multiply defense costs, and if limitations have not run, the plaintiff may simply refile.

Template 8: Motion to intervene and memorandum outline

Purpose: obtain intervention of right, or permissive intervention in the alternative. Owner: nonparty movant. When to use: within days of learning that existing parties are not protecting the movant's interest.

[MOVANT]'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AS [PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT]-INTERVENOR

[MOVANT] moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), or alternatively
Rule 24(b)(1)(B), for leave to intervene as a [PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT] for the
[FULL/LIMITED] purpose of [SCOPE]. As required by Rule 24(c), [MOVANT]'s proposed
[ANSWER IN INTERVENTION / COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION / MOTION TO UNSEAL] is attached
as Exhibit A. [MOVANT] proposes the conditions in the attached proposed order.
[CONFERRAL STATEMENT: PLAINTIFF OPPOSES; DEFENDANT CONSENTS; ETC.]

MEMORANDUM OUTLINE
I.   Introduction: who the movant is, what interest is at stake, what event
     prompted the motion, and the scope requested
II.  Background
     A. The case and its procedural posture
     B. The movant's interest (Declaration of [WITNESS] ¶¶ [X-Y])
     C. The triggering event on [DATE] (Declaration ¶ [Z]; Exhibits)
III. Intervention of right
     A. Timeliness: moved [N] days after [TRIGGER]; no prejudice from any delay;
        prejudice to movant if denied; unusual circumstances
     B. Significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction
     C. Practical impairment
     D. Inadequate representation: minimal burden; no presumption applies, or it is
        rebutted by [SPECIFIC DIVERGENCE]
IV.  Standing (if seeking relief different from existing parties, or required in
     this circuit): injury, traceability, redressability (Declaration ¶¶)
V.   Jurisdiction: [FEDERAL QUESTION / DIVERSITY: CONFIRM § 1367(b) DOES NOT BAR A
     PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR]
VI.  Alternatively, permissive intervention: common question; no undue delay or
     prejudice; proposed conditions
VII. Conclusion

Drafting commentary. The memorandum tracks the four elements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Timeliness runs from when the movant knew its interest was not protected, Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., 595 U.S. 267 (2022), and courts weigh prejudice from the delay, not from intervention. Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1977). The interest must be "significantly protectable." Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971). Inadequacy requires only a showing that representation "may be" inadequate, Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (1972), and the Supreme Court has declined to presume adequacy where a state-authorized agent seeks to defend state law, Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 597 U.S. 179 (2022). Section IV is mandatory if the movant seeks relief different from an existing party's, Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U.S. 433 (2017), and in the D.C. Circuit in any event, Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In diversity cases, § 1367(b) bars claims by persons "seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24" when inconsistent with § 1332, so Section V should show complete diversity and amount for any plaintiff-intervenor. Sample: Front Range Bank moves to intervene as plaintiff to protect its security interest in any recovery. It is a Colorado citizen, Holloway is a Kansas citizen, and the bank's secured interest exceeds $75,000, so § 1367(b) is satisfied.

Template 9: Proposed pleading in intervention

Purpose: satisfy Rule 24(c) and preserve the intervenor's claims or defenses. Owner: movant. When to use: attached to Template 8.

[PROPOSED] [ANSWER / COMPLAINT] IN INTERVENTION OF [MOVANT]

[FOR A DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR:]
[MOVANT] answers the Complaint as follows:
1. [Respond to each numbered paragraph: admit, deny, or state lack of knowledge
   sufficient to form a belief, under Rule 8(b).]
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
1. [DEFENSES, INCLUDING ANY THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT HAS NOT RAISED.]
PRAYER: that Plaintiff take nothing; [OTHER RELIEF].

[FOR A PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR:]
PARTIES AND INTEREST
1. [MOVANT] is [ENTITY TYPE AND CITIZENSHIP].
2. [MOVANT] holds [INTEREST: E.G., A PERFECTED SECURITY INTEREST IN PLAINTIFF'S
   RECEIVABLES AND THE PROCEEDS OF THIS ACTION UNDER A SECURITY AGREEMENT DATED
   [DATE]].
JURISDICTION
3. [BASIS; FOR DIVERSITY, CONFIRM COMPLETE DIVERSITY WITH EACH DEFENDANT AND
   AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.]
CLAIM
4. [MOVANT] adopts Paragraphs [X-Y] of the Complaint [OR STATES ITS OWN CLAIMS].
5. [MOVANT] is entitled to payment of any judgment or settlement proceeds to the
   extent of its secured interest, [AMOUNT], before distribution to Plaintiff.
PRAYER: [RELIEF].

[FOR LIMITED-PURPOSE INTERVENTION TO UNSEAL:]
MOTION TO UNSEAL [DOCKET NUMBERS] AND TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
1. The documents at [ECF NUMBERS] are judicial records filed in connection with
   [MOTION], subject to the common-law and First Amendment rights of access.
2. No party has made the particularized showing needed to seal them.
3. [MOVANT] requests [UNSEALING / REDACTED PUBLIC VERSIONS WITHIN 14 DAYS].

Drafting commentary. Rule 24(c) requires a pleading "that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought." Courts differ on how strictly they enforce it; attaching a complete pleading removes the issue. A defendant-intervenor's answer must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b) and is the place to preserve defenses the existing defendant has waived or ignored. A plaintiff-intervenor that seeks a money judgment in its own name needs standing. Laroe Estates. For unsealing, limited-purpose intervention is well established, Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994), and most circuits do not require an independent jurisdictional basis for it, EEOC v. National Children's Center, Inc., 146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Flynt v. Lombardi, 782 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2015). The access standard for documents filed with dispositive motions is strong. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). For sealing papers more generally, see Confidentiality Toolkit: Protective Orders, Designation Challenges, and Sealing Motions.

Template 10: Proposed order granting intervention with conditions

Purpose: give the court an order it can sign that resolves the prejudice arguments. Owner: movant, or the opposing party as a fallback. When to use: with Template 8, or with Template 11 as the alternative relief.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

Upon consideration of [MOVANT]'s Motion to Intervene (ECF No. [X]), it is ORDERED:
1. The Motion is GRANTED under Rule [24(a)(2) / 24(b)(1)(B)].
2. [MOVANT] is joined as [PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT]-Intervenor. The Clerk shall docket
   Exhibit A to the Motion as [MOVANT]'s [ANSWER/COMPLAINT] in Intervention.
3. Conditions. [MOVANT]'s participation is subject to the following conditions,
   which the Court may modify on motion for good cause:
   a. [MOVANT] shall comply with all deadlines in the Scheduling Order (ECF No. [Y]).
   b. [MOVANT] shall not reopen completed discovery. [MOVANT] may serve no more than
      [N] interrogatories and [N] requests for production, and may take [N]
      depositions, limited to [SUBJECTS].
   c. [MOVANT]'s participation is limited to [ISSUES].
   d. [MOVANT] shall confer with [ALIGNED PARTY] before filing any motion and shall,
      where practicable, file joint briefs. Separate briefs shall not exceed [N] pages.
   e. [MOVANT] shall not assert new claims or counterclaims without leave.
4. [MOVANT] shall serve initial disclosures within [14] days.

Drafting commentary. Courts have broad power to condition intervention, and conditions often decide whether a motion is granted. In Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (1972), the Supreme Court approved intervention limited to the claims the Secretary had raised. An order granting permissive intervention with conditions is generally not immediately appealable, Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370 (1987), so a movant should propose only conditions it can accept. The "may modify on motion for good cause" clause in paragraph 3 protects both sides. Sample: Orchard Valley and Holloway both accept the bank's intervention on conditions limiting it to the allocation of proceeds.

Template 11: Opposition to intervention outline

Purpose: defeat or narrow intervention. Owner: existing party. When to use: within the local-rule response period.

[PARTY]'S OPPOSITION TO [MOVANT]'S MOTION TO INTERVENE

I.   Introduction: why intervention would add delay without adding anything that
     an amicus brief could not
II.  The motion is untimely
     A. Chronology: [MOVANT] knew of the case by [DATE] (Exhibits: press coverage,
        correspondence, members' testimony)
     B. The position [MOVANT] attacks was taken on [DATE], not at the "trigger" it
        identifies
     C. Prejudice from the delay: [DISCOVERY CLOSED; SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATED IN
        RELIANCE ON EXISTING LINEUP]
III. [MOVANT] lacks a significantly protectable interest
     A. The interest is economic and contingent [E.G., INSURER DEFENDING UNDER
        RESERVATION OF RIGHTS]
     B. Disposition will not impair it: [MOVANT] is not bound and may sue separately
IV.  Existing parties adequately represent any interest
     A. Same ultimate objective; [PARTY] has made every argument [MOVANT] proposes
     B. [IF GOVERNMENT DEFENDANT] The presumption applied in this circuit;
        Berger is distinguishable because no state law designates [MOVANT] to
        represent the State
     C. Disagreement over tactics is not inadequacy
V.   Permissive intervention should be denied
     A. Undue delay and prejudice (Rule 24(b)(3))
     B. No independent jurisdictional basis [IF MERITS CLAIMS]; § 1367(b) bars a
        nondiverse plaintiff-intervenor in this diversity case
     C. Amicus participation is an adequate alternative
VI.  Alternatively, conditions (attach Template 10 with narrower terms)

Drafting commentary. Timeliness is reviewed for abuse of discretion and judged from all the circumstances, NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345 (1973), which makes the chronology in Section II the most valuable part of the brief. For insurers defending under a reservation of rights, Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Dingwell, 884 F.2d 629 (1st Cir. 1989) is the standard citation on contingent interests. Section IV.B must engage Berger honestly: the Court relied on North Carolina's statute authorizing legislative leaders to defend state law, and it rejected the presumption in that setting while leaving the general question open. Circuit presumptions such as Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) remain the opponent's best tools, but cite current circuit authority on whether they survive. Section V.B invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) in diversity cases. Sample: Holloway opposes Greenleaf's motion to intervene as untimely and argues that Greenleaf, as a separate claimant with its own damages, should sue separately; the court agrees and denies permissive intervention.

Template 12: Interpleader complaint skeleton

Purpose: deposit a disputed fund, bring all claimants into one court, and end the stakeholder's exposure. Owner: stakeholder (insurer, escrow agent, bank, plan administrator). When to use: when competing claims to a fund exceed it or conflict.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE [DISTRICT]

[STAKEHOLDER],
        Plaintiff-in-Interpleader,
v.                                              Civil Action No. [NUMBER]
[CLAIMANT 1], [CLAIMANT 2], [CLAIMANT 3],
        Defendants-in-Interpleader.

COMPLAINT IN INTERPLEADER

PARTIES
1. [STAKEHOLDER] is [CITIZENSHIP].
2-[N]. [EACH CLAIMANT AND ITS CITIZENSHIP.]

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
[N+1]. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 because the fund is worth
   $500 or more and two or more adverse claimants, [CLAIMANT 1] (a citizen of
   [STATE]) and [CLAIMANT 2] (a citizen of [DIFFERENT STATE]), claim or may claim
   entitlement to it. [ALTERNATIVELY OR ADDITIONALLY: Rule 22 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332.]
[N+2]. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1397 because [CLAIMANT] resides in this
   District.

THE FUND
[N+3]. [STAKEHOLDER] holds [DESCRIBE: E.G., THE $[AMOUNT] PER-OCCURRENCE LIMIT OF
   POLICY NO. [X] ISSUED TO [INSURED] FOR THE PERIOD [DATES]].
[N+4]. [STAKEHOLDER] will deposit the fund into the Court's registry [OR POST A
   BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $[X]] upon the Court's order. 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(2).

THE ADVERSE CLAIMS
[N+5]. [EACH CLAIM AND ITS AMOUNT; WHY THEY CONFLICT OR TOGETHER EXCEED THE FUND.]
[N+6]. [STAKEHOLDER] cannot determine without risk of multiple liability which
   claimants are entitled to the fund or in what amounts.
[N+7]. [STAKEHOLDER] claims no interest in the fund [OR: disputes liability on the
   following grounds, which it asserts in the alternative].

RELIEF REQUESTED
(a) Leave to deposit the fund; (b) an order under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 restraining all
claimants from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding against [STAKEHOLDER]
affecting the fund; (c) discharge of [STAKEHOLDER] from further liability with
respect to the fund; (d) an award of [STAKEHOLDER]'s reasonable fees and costs from
the fund [IF DISINTERESTED]; (e) an order that claimants litigate their entitlement.

Drafting commentary. Statutory interpleader needs only minimal diversity between two adverse claimants, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967); 28 U.S.C. § 1335, and the deposit or bond is a jurisdictional requirement in most courts. Venue lies wherever any claimant resides, 28 U.S.C. § 1397, and process runs nationwide, 28 U.S.C. § 2361. Rule 22 interpleader, Fed. R. Civ. P. 22, uses ordinary jurisdiction and is useful when diversity between the stakeholder and every claimant is complete. Keep the injunction request tied to the fund. Tashire held that interpleader cannot be used to force all tort litigation over an accident into one forum. Expect claimants to assert independent counterclaims (bad faith, negligence in handling the fund); discharge does not reach them. Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Hovis, 553 F.3d 258 (3d Cir. 2009); Lee v. West Coast Life Insurance Co., 688 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2012). For escrow-agent interpleaders, see Escrow Toolkit: Escrow Agreements, Joint Instructions, and Claim Notices. Sample: Pinecrest files in the District of Utah, where Greenleaf resides, naming Orchard Valley (Colorado) and Greenleaf (Utah) as adverse claimants to its $1 million limit.

Template 13: Proposed order for deposit, injunction, and discharge

Purpose: implement the first stage of interpleader. Owner: stakeholder. When to use: with Template 12 or after claimants appear.

[PROPOSED] ORDER
1. [STAKEHOLDER] shall deposit $[AMOUNT] into the registry of the Court within
   [7] days. The Clerk shall invest the funds in [AN INTEREST-BEARING ACCOUNT]
   under the Court's registry procedures.
2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2361, all Defendants-in-Interpleader are restrained from
   instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any State or federal court against
   [STAKEHOLDER] to recover the fund or any part of it, pending further order. This
   Order does not restrain any proceeding against [INSURED] or any other person to
   determine liability or damages.
3. Upon deposit, [STAKEHOLDER] is discharged from all further liability to the
   Defendants-in-Interpleader with respect to the fund. This discharge does not
   extend to [INDEPENDENT CLAIMS, IF ANY, PRESERVED BY A CLAIMANT].
4. [STAKEHOLDER] may apply for fees and costs from the fund within [14] days.
5. The Defendants-in-Interpleader shall file statements of their claims to the fund
   within [30] days.

Drafting commentary. Paragraph 2's second sentence is the Tashire limit written into the order: it protects the fund without enjoining the liability litigation. Paragraph 3's carve-out reflects the rule that discharge reaches only claims to the fund. Fee awards to insurer-stakeholders are discretionary and often reduced or denied because interpleader is a normal cost of the insurance business; check circuit law before asking.

Template 14: Opposition to post-removal joinder of a nondiverse defendant

Purpose: prevent a plaintiff from destroying diversity after removal. Owner: removing defendant. When to use: when the plaintiff moves (or purports to amend as of right) to add a nondiverse defendant.

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND TO JOIN [NEW DEFENDANT]

I.   28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) governs: the Court may deny joinder or permit it and remand
II.  The Hensgens factors favor denial
     A. Purpose: the motion followed removal by [N] days and adds a [LOCAL EMPLOYEE/
        DISTRIBUTOR] whose identity Plaintiff knew at filing
     B. Diligence: Plaintiff knew of [NEW DEFENDANT]'s role by [DATE]
     C. No significant injury if denied: [NEW DEFENDANT] is [AN EMPLOYEE FOR WHOSE
        CONDUCT DEFENDANT IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE]; complete relief is available
     D. Other equities: [FORUM MANIPULATION; DEFENDANT'S INTEREST IN FEDERAL FORUM]
III. Alternatively, joinder would be fraudulent: no reasonable possibility of
     recovery against [NEW DEFENDANT] under [STATE] law because [REASON]
IV.  Any amendment as of right under Rule 15(a)(1) remains subject to § 1447(e)

Drafting commentary. The factors come from Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1987), and courts treat fraudulent-joinder principles as relevant to the § 1447(e) balance. Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). The fraudulent-joinder standard is demanding: no reasonable basis to predict recovery, Smallwood v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004), and in the Ninth Circuit, no possibility of stating a claim even with amendment, Grancare, LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018). Remember the parallel risk on claims: an amendment deleting federal claims after removal requires remand of the remaining state claims. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025). For the broader picture, see Removal and Remand: Getting a Case to Federal Court and Keeping It There.

Template 15: Party deadline tracker

Purpose: keep every party-related deadline in one place. Owner: paralegal or docketing clerk, reviewed weekly by counsel. When to use: from intake through judgment.

Drafting commentary. The 14-day impleader window runs from service of the original answer, not an amended one. Relation back for a new party requires notice within the Rule 4(m) period, Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C). Substitution after death has a 90-day clock under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). The appeal clock for denial of intervention runs from entry of that order, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). For amendment-related deadlines, see Amended Pleading and Relation Back Checklist: A Practical Checklist.

How the running example ends

Holloway's third-party claims against Vantor go to arbitration under Vantor's distributor terms, and the court stays them. Summit Controls answers, asserts Orchard Valley's failure to maintain backup power as a defense to the main claim, and settles with Holloway for a contribution payment. Orchard Valley cannot sue Summit directly in federal court (both are Colorado citizens) and files a protective state-court action. Front Range Bank participates, on conditions, to protect its lien on proceeds. Greenleaf's motion to intervene is denied, and it pursues its claim in Pinecrest's Utah interpleader, where the $1 million limit is ultimately divided between Greenleaf and Orchard Valley by stipulation. The main case settles after mediation, with the settlement paid partly from the interpleaded fund and partly by Holloway and Vantor.

Frequently asked questions

Can one third-party complaint name several third-party defendants? Yes, if each is or may be liable to the defendant. Each needs its own jurisdictional and service basis.

Should the defendant attach the main complaint to the third-party complaint? Yes. Serve copies of all prior pleadings, and attach the complaint and answer as exhibits so the derivative theory is clear.

Does a proposed intervenor have to file an answer before the court rules? It must attach the proposed pleading under Rule 24(c); the clerk dockets it if the motion is granted.

What if the stakeholder disputes that it owes anything? It may still interplead, asserting its defenses in the alternative, but it is not a disinterested stakeholder and should not expect a fee award.

Can a plaintiff use Template 7 to drop a nondiverse defendant it named by mistake? Yes. Rule 21 allows dropping a dispensable nondiverse party to preserve jurisdiction. Newman-Green.

This document is general information, not legal advice for any particular situation. Adapt every template to the governing local rules, the judge's standing orders, and the applicable substantive law.

Related Documents

Related Articles

• Adding Parties to a Federal Lawsuit: Joinder, Intervention, Impleader, and Interpleader: the doctrine behind every template.
• Multiparty and Multicontract Arbitration: Consolidation, Joinder, and the Non-Signatory Problem: when an indemnity claim must be arbitrated.
• Removal and Remand: Getting a Case to Federal Court and Keeping It There: the removal context for Template 14.
• Indemnification and Limitation of Liability: The Risk Allocation Engine of Every Contract: the contract terms behind most third-party complaints.

Related Guides

• Intervening in a Federal Case or Opposing Intervention: A Practical Guide: the step-by-step narrative for Templates 8 through 11.
• Negotiating a Protective Order and Filing Under Seal: A Practical Guide: sealing practice behind limited-purpose intervention.
• Moving for or Opposing Leave to Amend a Pleading: A Practical Guide: leave standards parallel to Template 5.

Related Checklists

• Party Joinder and Third-Party Practice Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the task sequence these templates support.
• Amended Pleading and Relation Back Checklist: A Practical Checklist: relation back for new parties.
• Venue and Transfer Checklist: A Practical Checklist: venue after severance.

Related Toolkits

• Amendment Toolkit: Redlined Pleadings, Rule 16 Good Cause Showings, and Futility Oppositions: good-cause showings for late joinder.
• Responsive Pleading Toolkit: Answer Templates, Affirmative Defense Libraries, and Counterclaim Outlines: answer, counterclaim, and crossclaim forms.
• Confidentiality Toolkit: Protective Orders, Designation Challenges, and Sealing Motions: unsealing motions for limited-purpose intervenors.
• Insurance Coverage Toolkit: Placing, Tendering, and Litigating Claims: tender and coverage forms for insurer-stakeholders.