6) joinder Flashcards
P has multiple claims against same D: can she bring them?
yes! regardless of whether related
P has multiple claims against same D: must she bring them?
no. (but preclusion)
counterclaim: who
anyone being sued by anyone can do a counterclaim
need smj for
each individual claim
need pj for
each individual D
counterclaim: permissive: def
claim that DOES NOT arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (of any of “P”’s claims against D).
counterclaim: permissive: rule
MAY file but dnh to
counterclaim: compulsory: def
claim that DOES arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (of any of “P”’s claims against D).
counterclaim: compulsory: rule
must file it or else will forfeit it for future litigation
cross claims: def
filed against a co=party (same side of the v)
cross claims: must be related?
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
counterclaim rules
can apply to a “P” of any procedural posture (like a D3 P/etc)
impleader (def)
defendant sues to bring in someone not yet involved in the lawsuit
impleader (rule)
can only bring if alleging that the 3rd party is responsible for some or all of the liability facing the defending party
impleader (exs)
1) contribution
2) indemnity (insurance)
impleader: permitted?
1) automatically if w/in 14 days of serving answer
2) later: only w permission fo court
impleader: can original P file claims against impleaded?
yes, but must arise out of same T+O
joinder of parties: kinds
1) permissive
2) mandatory
parties: permissive joinder: rule
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
parties: mandatory joinder: arises often in
mxn to dismiss (if party is really needed but can’t be joined)
parties: mandatory joinder: steps
1) is absent party necessary?
2) if yes, can she be joined?
3) if can’t be joined, is she indispensable?
parties: mandatory joinder: steps: “necessary” factors
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
parties: mandatory joinder: steps: “necessary” result
if party not necessary, analysis ends and mandatory joinder dn apply
parties: mandatory joinder: “necessary”: joint tortfeasors necessary parties for each other?
no!
parties: mandatory joinder: steps: can be joined?: rule
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
parties: mandatory joinder: steps: can be joined?: result
if can be joined, just join them, analysis ends there
parties: mandatory joinder: steps: indispensible: result
yes indispensable: must dismiss
not indispensable: can adjudicate w/o that party
parties: mandatory joinder: steps: indispensable: test
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)
class actions: requirements
1) class can be formed
2) action is of the sort proper for resolution by class action
class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs
need all:
1) numerosity
2) commonality
3) typicality
4) representativeness
class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs: numerosity (def)
class is so numerous that joinder of all members impracticable
class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs: commonality (def)
there are qs of law or fact common to the class
class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs: typicality (def)
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
class action: reqs: class can be formed: reqs: representativeness (def)
rep parties will fairly and adequately protect interest of the class (broader than typicality: includes attys)
class actions: reqs: proper action: def
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
class action: spl rules: PJ
court needs PJ over:
- -every D
- -named Ps only (and they consent by filing)
DNN pj over every class member
class action: spl rules: binding effect
judgment binds all members of the class unless they opt out
class action: spl rules: opting out: when can?
“common question” class actions (common q of law or fact predominates over individual qs)
class action: spl rules: Notice
must notif class members of the suit, reasonably calculated to apprise – mail or publication
class actions: spl rules: SMJ: diversity
need complete diversity btwn REP Ps and all Ds
exception
class actions: spl rules: SMJ: diversity: exceptions
1) big class rules!
2) easier removal
class actions: spl rules: SMJ: diversity: big class rule
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)
class actions: spl rules: SMJ: diversity: easier removal
removal can be made even:
1) by a homestate D
2) w/o agreement of all the Ds
interpleader: def
party can file interpleader claim when fears multiple and inconsistent liability: then it can start the suit!
intervention: def
nonparty interested inr esult of lawsuit but hasn’t been joined yet can try to join through own initiative
intervention: kinds
1) of right
2) permissive
intervention: of right: def
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
intervention: PJ issues?
no! by deciding to intervene you’re consenting to j
intervention: permissive: def
at (broad) discretion of court:
ok intervene if shares common q of law or fact w the main action
rship btwn joinder + SMJ
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
rship btwn joinder + PJ
need PJ for EVERY PARTY so even if technically could join someone, fed ct dnh j over them unless they have their indiv pj
rship btwn joinder + PJ: exception
bulge rule
rship btwn joinder + PJ: bulge rule: def
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)
rship btwn joinder + venue
only consider venue at TIME OF FILING so dn reconsider for new claims
(exception)
rship btwn joinder + venue: exception
if mandatorily-joined party objects to venue + adding the party makes venue improper, court must dismiss the joined party
