Contractor was the general contractor for a housing development. Subcontractor provided all of the concrete work for the housing development. Developer was the owner of the housing development.

The housing development job fell behind schedule, and after it was completed, Developer sued Contractor in federal court for damages caused by the delay. Developer was a citizen of New York. Contractor was a citizen of Virginia and the dispute involved $575,000.

Contractor then filed a third-party complaint (in the same action) against Subcontractor, a citizen of Florida, asserting that Subcontractor had overcharged Contractor for Subcontractor's work on the housing development and owed him $200,000. Subcontractor's concrete work did not contribute to the delays in the housing development project.

Was Contractor's claim against Subcontractor properly brought before the Court under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

Yes, because Contractor's claim against Subcontractor arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences as Developer's claim against Contractor

Yes, because Contractor can introduce any claim that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

No, because Subcontractor is not responsible for the schedule delays in the housing development project

No, because Contractor should have filed a crossclaim against Subcontractor