This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Channel (D) filed a motion to file and serve a third-party complaint upon Joy Plastics, Inc. Both P and Menford (D) had no objection to Channel's (D) motion. Channel (D) is alleged to have sold to Menford (D) the doormat which allegedly caused the injuries to P. Channel (D) denied selling the doormat, and after having the doormat inspected by one of its buyers, it was able to identify the proposed third-party defendant, Joy Plastics, Inc., as the manufacturer and/or seller. Channel (D) contends that it could not reasonably have discovered the identity and involvement of the proposed third-party defendant at an earlier date because Channel (D) had no records of the sale or purchase of the product and Joy Plastics, Inc., was not a supplier of the product to Channel (D).

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.