Group III: Pleadings and Motions · Last amended 2017 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 13 requires a party to raise a compulsory counterclaim arising from the same transaction as the opposing party's claim, allows permissive counterclaims and crossclaims against coparties, and carves out counterclaims that fall outside the court's own jurisdiction.
(1)In General. A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that—at the time of its service—the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim:
(A)arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; and
(B)does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
(2)Exceptions. The pleader need not state the claim if:
(A)when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action;
(B)the opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim under this rule; or
(C)it is not within the jurisdiction of the court.
(b)PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIMS. A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory if such counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the court.
(c)RELIEF SOUGHT IN A COUNTERCLAIM. A counterclaim need not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing party. It may request relief that exceeds in amount or differs in kind from the relief sought by the opposing party.
(d)COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. These rules do not expand the right to assert a counterclaim—or to claim a credit—against the United States or the District of Columbia or an officer or agency of either.
(e)COUNTERCLAIM MATURING OR ACQUIRED AFTER PLEADING. The court may permit a party to file a supplemental pleading asserting a counterclaim that matured or was acquired by the party after serving an earlier pleading.
(g)CROSSCLAIM AGAINST A COPARTY. A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant.
(h)JOINING ADDITIONAL PARTIES. Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counterclaim or crossclaim.
(i)SEPARATE TRIALS; SEPARATE JUDGMENTS. If the court orders separate trials under Rule 42(b), it may enter judgment on a counterclaim or crossclaim under Rule 54(b) when it has jurisdiction to do so, even if the opposing party’s claims have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Comments
2017 Amendments:
This rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13, as amended in 2007 and 2009, but maintains two local distinctions—1) a reference to the District of Columbia in section (d), which makes clear that these rules do not expand the right to assert a counterclaim—or to claim a credit—against the District of Columbia or a District of Columbia officer or agency and 2) an exception in subsection (a)(2) and section (b) for counterclaims that are not within the court’s jurisdiction.
Comment:
Identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13, (1) reference to the District of Columbia has been added to section (d) which provides that these Rules do not enlarge existing legal limitations with respect to suits against the government or its agents and (2) an exemption has been added to sections (a) and (b) for counterclaims which are with-out the jurisdiction of the Court.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 13 separates counterclaims into two categories, and the difference matters. A compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) is one a party already has against an opposing party, at the time it serves its pleading, that arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim and does not need another party the court cannot get jurisdiction over — a party who has such a claim and does not raise it risks losing the ability to bring it later. The rule carves out three exceptions: claims already the subject of another pending suit when this action started, claims where the opposing party sued by attachment or other process that never gave the court personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, provided the pleader is not asserting any counterclaim under this rule, and — a distinctly local feature — claims that fall outside the Superior Court's jurisdiction altogether. Rule 13(b) then allows any other counterclaim to be brought permissively, so long as it too falls within the court's jurisdiction.
Rule 13(c) frees a counterclaim from having to match or offset the original claim — it can ask for more, or for something completely different in kind. Rule 13(e) lets a party bring in a counterclaim that matured or was acquired only after an earlier pleading was served, by supplemental pleading. Rule 13(g) permits a crossclaim between coparties — say, two codefendants — when it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or an existing counterclaim, or when it relates to property that is the subject matter of the original action, including a claim that a coparty owes contribution or indemnity for part of what the crossclaimant might owe.
Two further provisions round out the rule. Rule 13(d) makes clear that nothing here expands a party's right to counterclaim against, or claim a credit from, the United States or District of Columbia government or its officers and agencies — those rights come from elsewhere in the law, not from this rule. And Rule 13(i) lets the court, when it has ordered separate trials under Rule 42(b), enter judgment on a counterclaim or crossclaim under Rule 54(b) even while the opposing party's own claims remain unresolved or have already been dismissed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes a counterclaim compulsory rather than permissive in DC?
Under Rule 13(a), a counterclaim is compulsory if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim and does not require joining someone the court cannot get jurisdiction over. Rule 13(b) allows other counterclaims to be brought permissively as long as the court has jurisdiction over them.
Can I bring a counterclaim that DC Superior Court doesn't have jurisdiction over?
No. Rule 13(a)(2)(C) and Rule 13(b) both exclude counterclaims that fall outside the court's jurisdiction, a local limitation not found in the federal rule.
Can I sue a codefendant with a crossclaim instead of just answering the plaintiff?
Yes. Rule 13(g) allows a crossclaim against a coparty when it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or an existing counterclaim, or when it relates to property that is the subject matter of the original action, including a claim that the coparty owes all or part of what the crossclaimant might be found to owe.
What if my counterclaim didn't exist yet when I filed my answer?
Rule 13(e) lets the court permit a supplemental pleading asserting a counterclaim that matured, or that the party acquired, after an earlier pleading was already served.
Can I bring a counterclaim against the District of Columbia government?
Rule 13(d) makes clear this rule does not expand whatever right to counterclaim or claim a credit against the United States, the District of Columbia, or their officers or agencies already exists elsewhere in the law — it neither grants nor limits that right on its own.
Source & verification. Rule text and official Comments are
reproduced verbatim from the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:dc compulsory counterclaim ruledc crossclaim against codefendantcounterclaim against district of columbia governmentpermissive counterclaim dc superior court