claim of excessive force during arrest would diminish or defeat the Deputies’ ability to establish liability on their primary claim of assault. As discussed, 'he admits that he .could have filed his counterclaim as an independent action but did not do so. Thus, the counterclaim is clearly an affirmative one and not one merely one that seeks recoupment or setoff. Yet, in his brief, he argues that any damages he recovers against the Deputies on his counterclaim will “diminish or defeat” the damage award on their assault claim. The same could be said concerning all counterclaims for recoupment. This is why the rule salvages counterclaims in recoupment and not counterclaims such as Wittig’s that se h Ctrs., Cause No. 3:13-CV-387 RLM, 2015 WL 1538820, slip op. at *2-(N.D.Ind. Apr. 7, 2015).(<HOLDING>); Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers
holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims holding that even constitutional claims can be timebarred holding that counterclaims for defamation and tortious interference constituted distinct affirmative claims for relief not claims for recoupment and thus were timebarred under indiana trial rule 13j1 holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference holding that claims of tortious interference and fraud constituted claims of professional negligence and thus required certificate of merit because underlying complaint was that appellee was injured by appellants failing to disclose information and providing inaccurate information