In Jordan v. CEA Group, counsel debated an arcane but potentially consequential civil‑procedure issue: whether an amended complaint and subsequent answer with a cross claim can supersede and effectively nullify a separately filed and answered third‑party complaint. Chris Negrete, representing CEA, asked the court to reverse a superior‑court order that entered judgment for a third‑party defendant after settlement and argued there is no authority to treat a cross claim as automatically supplanting a properly filed third‑party complaint.

Negrete said the rules that govern pleadings (Mass. Rules 7A, 13, 14) contemplate different operative documents and that nothing in those rules states a later cross claim nullifies a properly filed and answered third‑party complaint. He pointed to PCA’s incorporation by reference of earlier answers as evidence the claims remained live and said the trial timeline and Rule 9 filings condensed the parties’ opportunities to respond.

Warren Hutchinson, representing PCA, defended the trial judge and settlement approval, saying many of CEA’s arguments were not raised below and therefore are forfeited on appeal. PCA argued the record showed CEA had acted in a way that induced reliance and settlement and that reversal could upend the settled outcome. The court explored analogies in the case law (including National Construction and Bank of America analogs) and asked whether starting the clock anew with an amended complaint requires parties to reassert claims by cross claim if they want them preserved.

The panel took the arguments under advisement after extended questioning about pleading practice, incorporation and estoppel.