6) joinder

Question 1

P has multiple claims against same D: can she bring them?

Answer 1

yes! regardless of whether related

Question 2

P has multiple claims against same D: must she bring them?

Answer 2

no. (but preclusion)

Question 3

counterclaim: who

Answer 3

anyone being sued by anyone can do a counterclaim

Question 4

need smj for

Answer 4

each individual claim

Question 5

need pj for

Answer 5

each individual D

Question 6

counterclaim: permissive: def

Answer 6

claim that DOES NOT arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (of any of “P”’s claims against D).

Question 7

counterclaim: permissive: rule

Answer 7

MAY file but dnh to

Question 8

counterclaim: compulsory: def

Answer 8

claim that DOES arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (of any of “P”’s claims against D).

Question 9

counterclaim: compulsory: rule

Answer 9

must file it or else will forfeit it for future litigation

Question 10

cross claims: def

Answer 10

filed against a co=party (same side of the v)

Question 11

cross claims: must be related?

Answer 11

1) initially YES – must be from same T+O as P’s claims

2) BUT once there’s a valid initial claim, then can add additional unrelated claims too

Question 12

counterclaim rules

Answer 12

can apply to a “P” of any procedural posture (like a D3 P/etc)

Question 13

impleader (def)

Answer 13

defendant sues to bring in someone not yet involved in the lawsuit

Question 14

impleader (rule)

Answer 14

can only bring if alleging that the 3rd party is responsible for some or all of the liability facing the defending party

Question 15

impleader (exs)

Answer 15

1) contribution

2) indemnity (insurance)

Question 16

impleader: permitted?

Answer 16

1) automatically if w/in 14 days of serving answer

2) later: only w permission fo court

Question 17

impleader: can original P file claims against impleaded?

Answer 17

yes, but must arise out of same T+O

Question 18

joinder of parties: kinds

Answer 18

1) permissive

2) mandatory

Question 19

parties: permissive joinder: rule

Answer 19

ok sue in same action if:

1) joined parties face relief (if Ps) or liability (if Ds) that arises out of same transaction or occurrence
2) common question of law or fact

Question 20

parties: mandatory joinder: arises often in

Answer 20

mxn to dismiss (if party is really needed but can’t be joined)

Question 21

parties: mandatory joinder: steps

Answer 21

1) is absent party necessary?
2) if yes, can she be joined?
3) if can’t be joined, is she indispensable?

Question 22

parties: mandatory joinder: steps: “necessary” factors

Answer 22

need 1 of 3 (clear):

1) party has interest that might be impaired if left out
2) complete relief can’t be issued in party’s absence
3) current parties would be subject to duplicative or inconsistent liability

Question 23

parties: mandatory joinder: steps: “necessary” result

Answer 23

if party not necessary, analysis ends and mandatory joinder dn apply

Question 24

parties: mandatory joinder: “necessary”: joint tortfeasors necessary parties for each other?

Answer 24

no!

Question 25

parties: mandatory joinder: steps: can be joined?: rule

Answer 25

usually yes can join but 2 times when can’t:

1) no PJ over missing party
2) adding party would destroy SMJ based on diversity

Question 26

parties: mandatory joinder: steps: can be joined?: result

Answer 26

if can be joined, just join them, analysis ends there

Question 27

parties: mandatory joinder: steps: indispensible: result

Answer 27

yes indispensable: must dismiss

not indispensable: can adjudicate w/o that party

Question 28

parties: mandatory joinder: steps: indispensable: test

Answer 28

very discretionary, loose factor test. Factors:

1) extent of prejudice to missing party
2) can prejudice be lessened by shaping relief a particular way
3) if case dismissed can P find relief in another forum?

(goal: resolve dispute w/o prejudicing missing party)

Question 29

class actions: requirements

Answer 29

1) class can be formed

2) action is of the sort proper for resolution by class action

Question 30

class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs

Answer 30

need all:

1) numerosity
2) commonality
3) typicality
4) representativeness

Question 31

class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs: numerosity (def)

Answer 31

class is so numerous that joinder of all members impracticable

Question 32

class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs: commonality (def)

Answer 32

there are qs of law or fact common to the class

Question 33

class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs: typicality (def)

Answer 33

the claims of the representative parties are typical of those of the class, thus ensuring that rep has incentive to litigate in ways that protect class

Question 34

class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs: representativeness (def)

Answer 34

rep parties will fairly and adequately protect interest of the class (broader than typicality: includes attys)

Question 35

class actions: reqs: proper action: def

Answer 35

ANY of these:

1) separate actions would create risk of inconsistent judgments (rare)
2) party opposing the class has acted in ways generally applicable to the class (injunctive relief only)
3) court finds that common qs of law or fact PREDOMINATE over individualized qs and that class action is SUPERIOR to other methods for fair + efficient resolution

Question 36

class action: spl rules: PJ

Answer 36

court needs PJ over:

• -every D
• -named Ps only (and they consent by filing)

DNN pj over every class member

Question 37

class action: spl rules: binding effect

Answer 37

judgment binds all members of the class unless they opt out

Question 38

class action: spl rules: opting out: when can?

Answer 38

“common question” class actions (common q of law or fact predominates over individual qs)

Question 39

class action: spl rules: Notice

Answer 39

must notif class members of the suit, reasonably calculated to apprise – mail or publication

Question 40

class actions: spl rules: SMJ: diversity

Answer 40

need complete diversity btwn REP Ps and all Ds

exception

Question 41

class actions: spl rules: SMJ: diversity: exceptions

Answer 41

1) big class rules!

2) easier removal

Question 42

class actions: spl rules: SMJ: diversity: big class rule

Answer 42

if class has 100+ members and damages $5M+, fed ct can assert j over the suit if:
ANY single class member (not just rep P) is diverse from ANT single D (minimal diversity)

Question 43

class actions: spl rules: SMJ: diversity: easier removal

Answer 43

removal can be made even:

1) by a homestate D
2) w/o agreement of all the Ds

Question 44

interpleader: def

Answer 44

party can file interpleader claim when fears multiple and inconsistent liability: then it can start the suit!

Question 45

intervention: def

Answer 45

nonparty interested inr esult of lawsuit but hasn’t been joined yet can try to join through own initiative

Question 46

intervention: kinds

Answer 46

1) of right

2) permissive

Question 47

intervention: of right: def

Answer 47

1) timely application
2) claims interest relating to subject of action
3) so situated that if dn intervene, risk that won’t be able to protect interests

result: must be allwoed to join

Question 48

intervention: PJ issues?

Answer 48

no! by deciding to intervene you’re consenting to j

Question 49

intervention: permissive: def

Answer 49

at (broad) discretion of court:

ok intervene if shares common q of law or fact w the main action

Question 50

rship btwn joinder + SMJ

Answer 50

need SMJ for EVERY CLAIM (of any kind) so even if technically could join it, it’s not being heard in fed ct unless it has its own SMJ

Question 51

rship btwn joinder + PJ

Answer 51

need PJ for EVERY PARTY so even if technically could join someone, fed ct dnh j over them unless they have their indiv pj

Question 52

rship btwn joinder + PJ: exception

Answer 52

bulge rule

Question 53

rship btwn joinder + PJ: bulge rule: def

Answer 53

an IMPLEADED D is subject to pj if served w/in 100 mi of the court where the suit is pending (even in other state)

(or has another ground) (rare instance where dnn normal state + const analysis)

Question 54

rship btwn joinder + venue

Answer 54

only consider venue at TIME OF FILING so dn reconsider for new claims

(exception)

Question 55

rship btwn joinder + venue: exception

Answer 55

if mandatorily-joined party objects to venue + adding the party makes venue improper, court must dismiss the joined party