14(a). As noted above, however, Cronenwett eventually did bring a third-party action against Fidelity when she filed her “amended cross-claim/third-party Complaint,” asserting her ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim against Fidelity, General Motors Corporation and General Motors Investment Management Corporation. (Doc. #43). Unfortunately for Cronenwett, however, Rule 14(a) only permits a defendant/third-party plaintiff to file a third-party complaint against “a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the [original] plaintiffs claim against the third-party plaintiff.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure, Civil 2d § 1441 at 295 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Cronenwett does not
holding that a defendants counterclaim that is based on the breach of the same maritime insurance contract as the main claim  cannot be granted a jury trial because the resolution of the defendants claim would dispose of all or part of the plaintiffs action the net result would be to resolve the case in a jury trial despite the plaintiffs 9h election holding that the elements of a claim under  3729a2 are 1 that the defendant made used or caused to be made or used a record or statement to get a claim against the united states paid or approved 2 the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent and 3 the defendant knew that the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent emphasis added recognizing that impleader under rule 14a is available only against persons who are or may be liable to defendant for part or all of plaintiffs claim it cannot be used as a way of combining all controversies having a common relationship in one action holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable holding that a municipality may not be held liable under section 1983 under a theory of respondeat superi or but may be liable for policies or customs that violate an employees constitutional rights