Heritage Integrity Investment Trust v. Computershare Trust Company, N.A.

Background

Computershare filed cross-claims against Ruwack Irrevocable Trust and Isaac Cain. A cross-claim is a claim by one defendant against another party in the same case. Computershare sought contribution and indemnity if it were found liable to Heritage.

Heritage filed a memorandum describing Computershare’s filing as a motion to assert cross-claims. Heritage asked the court to deny the filing, arguing that Ruwack and Cain were no longer defendants, that the claims were not ripe because Computershare had not been found liable, that the claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as Heritage’s claims, and that they would complicate and delay the case.

Court’s decision

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g) sets no specific deadline for filing a cross-claim. The court also found that the Local Rules and any applicable scheduling order did not impose a deadline or require permission before filing one. Because Computershare had not yet filed an answer, it did not need to amend an existing pleading, so the rule governing amended pleadings did not apply.

The court therefore accepted Computershare’s filing as a pleading, not a motion. It construed Heritage’s filing as a motion to dismiss the cross-claims. The court did not decide the arguments for or against dismissal in this order.

Next steps and effect

For administrative purposes, the court directed Heritage to file a document clearly identified as a motion to dismiss the cross-claims; Heritage did not need to file its memorandum again. Computershare’s opposition was due May 12, 2025, and Heritage’s optional reply was due May 19, 2025. The order was entered by Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses.