Permissive Counterclaim (Rule 13(b)) may be asserted against an opposing party if it does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.

Enhance your Bar Exam preparation with Themis Bar Exam Quiz. Use hints and multiple choice questions to sharpen your understanding. Excel in your Bar Exam!

Permissive counterclaims under Rule 13(b) can be brought even if they don’t arise from the same transaction or occurrence, as long as the counterclaim has an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. That independent SMJ is the key requirement, ensuring the court has authority to hear the counterclaim on its own merits. The idea here is that the counterclaim isn’t tied to the plaintiff’s claim, but must stand on its own jurisdictional footing. The other statements don’t fit because they either imply a dependency on the same transaction (that describes compulsory counterclaims), claim it’s mandatory (it’s optional), or place an unnecessary restriction on new parties (the rule’s central point is jurisdictional independence, not a blanket ban on party changes).