Can ∆ from Michigan bring a related claim against π from Ohio in a car crash case?

The correct response highlights that the defendant (∆) from Michigan can bring a related claim against the plaintiff (π) from Ohio in the context of a car crash case as a compulsory counterclaim.

A compulsory counterclaim arises in situations where the claim is related to the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the original action brought by the plaintiff. In the scenario of a car crash, it is very likely that the defendant will have claims arising from the same incident—such as claims for damages related to injuries or property damage. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13(a), if the counterclaim is compulsory, it must be raised in the current litigation; failure to do so may preclude the defendant from asserting that claim in a separate future case.

This allows for judicial efficiency as both claims are resolved in one action instead of potentially having two separate lawsuits regarding the same event. Hence, because the claim is from the same transaction (the car crash), the defendant can indeed assert it as a compulsory counterclaim, making option C correct in this situation.

Addressing the other choices: Option A, suggesting permission from the plaintiff is required, is not applicable in the context of compulsory counterclaims, as they are mandated to be filed