Short answer. Yes. Section 9 of Rule 6 expressly allows it: a counterclaim may be asserted against an original counter-claimant, and a cross-claim may likewise be filed against an original cross-claimant, letting the pleading-and-response cycle continue one more level rather than stopping once the first counterclaim or cross-claim has been answered.
What the law says
A counterclaim may be asserted against an original counter-claimant. A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.
Rule 6, Section 9 — Counter. Read the full provision →
Claims can go another round
Section 9 recognizes that the claim-counterclaim structure is not necessarily limited to a single exchange. It states directly that a counterclaim may be asserted against an original counter-claimant — meaning the person who was hit with a counterclaim can respond not just with a defense, but with their own counterclaim back against the party who counterclaimed against them. This is not limited to a single additional round either, since nothing in the text caps how many further counterclaims can follow, so long as each new claim is genuinely tied to the underlying transaction the case already involves.
The same logic applies to cross-claims
The section extends the identical principle to cross-claims: a cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant. Just as with counterclaims, a co-party who was cross-claimed against by another co-party is not limited to purely defensive responses — they may bring their own cross-claim back against the original cross-claimant, continuing the same transactional dispute between co-parties one level further. This symmetry means neither side of a cross-claim gets the last pleading word simply by having filed first; a co-party on the receiving end of a cross-claim retains the same ability to strike back with a related claim of their own, keeping the dispute among co-parties balanced rather than one-sided.
Why this matters for keeping disputes in one case
This provision reinforces the broader purpose behind counterclaims and cross-claims generally: resolving related disputes between the same set of parties within a single proceeding rather than spinning off separate lawsuits every time a new claim surfaces between them. Without Section 9, a party responding to a counterclaim or cross-claim might have no clear pleading vehicle to assert their own related claim back, forcing them into a fresh, separate action instead. This provision does not, however, allow a party to raise an entirely unrelated claim under the guise of a counter-counterclaim; like the original counterclaim or cross-claim it responds to, the new claim still has to satisfy whatever relationship to the transaction or occurrence the underlying claim required in the first place.