aggreating claims and parties (joinder) Flashcards
what does rule 18 say (basic claim joinder)
its an entierly permissive rule!
says you CAN join other claims!
under rule 18, if you have two claims against the same D do you have to join both claims?
no! rule 18 is permissive – doesnt even matter if the CLAIMS are closely related (dont confuse with rule 13)
what is rule 13 about?
counterclaims
what does rule 13(b) say about counterclaims
parties are always allowed to counterclaim
what does rule 13(a) say about counterclaims
tells us when we are REQUIRED to counterclaim – HAVE TO COUNTER CLAIM WHEN
the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurance as the oppsing party’s claim AND it wont require adding another party over whom the court doenst have jurisdiciton
what is a counterclaim
a claim for relef made against an opposing party after an orginal claim has been made
what are the exceptions to the rule 13a requirements to counterclaim?
see lang of the rule lol but just recognize that there are excpetions to the compulsory claim joinder rule
what are some factors to consider in figuring out if a claim arises under the same transaction or occurnce via rule 13a (compulsory counter claims)
the issue of fact and law in the claims are the same
the same evidence would support or refute the claims and
there is a logical relationship between the claims
who can file a counterclaim
anyone on the receving end of a cliam can fire back a counterclaim
what is rule 18 joinder of claims
tells us that a party may join independent or alternative claims of whatever nature against opposing parties
of courtse all claims need to satsify subject matter jurisdction
jones v ford motor – what test does the court use to deterine if the two cliams come out of the same transaction/occurance to make it compulsory counterclaim under rule 13a ?
P claim for discrimination on disproportionate financing plan for white customers vs black customers
D counterclaims for the defaults on the car payments
P moves to dismiss D’s counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Only way a counterclaim can go to federal court is if there is supplemental jurisdiction
Issue one
MUST ford assert the counter claims (ie is it compulsory or permissive)
Issue two
Is there jurisdiction over permissive counterclaims?
issue one: uses logical relationship test; – the essential facts of the claim must be so logically connected that judical fairness/effeiciency says they should be tried in one suit
While there is a BUT FOR connection between the claims, they are not so closely related
Most courts would think they are connected, but this court is super strict
So these claims are permissive
issue two – only needs a loose facutal connection for supp jurisdction to apply to permssive claims so supp jurisdction does exsist
Ginwright v. Exeter Finance Corp – what test does the court use to determine if the claims came from the same transaction or occurnece to determine of counterclaim was permissble or compulsory
suit against Exeter for excessive calls; exeter countersues for loans
Court concludes the counterclaim is PERMISSIVE
three factor test; some courts say all are needed, others like this case use them as factors to consider
- are the issues of fact and law raised in the calim and counterclaim larely the same
- will substaintially the same evidence support or refuste the claim as well as the counter claim?
- is there any logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim
what is rule 20 permissive party joinder about
determines when a P MAY join other ps in an action or when Ds MAY be jointed in the same action
under rule 20(a)(1) permissive joinder, when may parties be joined (its the same for both d and p)
- the claims asserted by (P) or against them (D) arise out of the same transaction or occurence AND
- There is a question of law or fact common to all parties
what does rule 20(b) protective mesures do in terms of permissive joinder
allows for severence! up to courts discretion
what is rule 19 required joinder of parties all about
tells us when additonal parties MUST be joined, and when failure to join NECESSARY PARTIES demands for dismissal
what is rule 19a persons REQUIRED to be joined IF FEASIBLE about (compulsory joinder)
under this rule, when is a party necessary, and therefore MUST be joined?
(a)(1)(A) complete releif cant be provided to exsisting parties in the absense of that person
(a)(1)(B)(i) that person’s abilitu to protect his interest might be IMPAIRED by his absense; OR
(a)(1)(B)(ii) exsisting parties are at riks of multiple or inconsistent obligations without the absent party’s presence
what is rule 19b when joinder is not feasible about?
ie a party might be necessary but they cant be joined for lack of personal jurisdciton !
Tells us what to do if they are required to be joined but its not feasible for them to be joined
if this is the case you have to figure out if the party is indespensible
for rule 19b, what do the courts consider in terms of figuring out whehter a party is indespensible?
four in all
predjudice to all parties if judgment is passed in the persons absense
adequacy of jdugment rendered in the persons absense
whehter predjude can be reduced or avoided
whether p would still have adequate remedy if the aciton were dismissed
what are the steps for rule 19 compulsory party joinder
- is joinder required
- is joinder feasible? ie is pj, smj, service, venue still gonna be met if we bring them in
3a – if both yes, then join them
3b if 2 is no, the figure out whehter to go forward with the case or to dismiss ala the indispensable factors
what is rule 21 misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties about?
cant dismiss the whole case just because of misjoinder, but the court can add and drop parties at their discretion
king v pepsi
five Ps sue pepsi for discrimination; pepsi wants them separated
Pepsi filed a motion in the alternative seeking a severance of the employees, arguing that because plaintiffs failed to move for class designation within the appropriate time frame, their individual claims under the Civil Rights Act should be tried separately before separate juries.
Does the failure of plaintiffs to seek a class designation preclude rule 20 joinder of the plaintiffs?
no! Courts should seek the broades application for fairness
So they are giving a liberal interpretation
what is the policy behind party joinder via the king v pepsi case
courts tend to faovr the borades possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties, and strongly encourage joinder when applicable
how are rule 20 permissive party joinder and rule 18 joinder of claims related
If you meet the two elements (arise from same transaction/occurrence and similar questions of logic/fact) ,via rule 18 you can then assert any other unrelated claim; the claim serves as the anchor claim
John s clark v Travelers indemnity
was there misjoinder of defendant T?
Defenant H moves to remand the case, and P moves to remand to state
Defendant T want to go to federal court, and don’t want to be in same suit as Defenant H because Def T didnt want jury to know that they were insured
Def T asks for a rule 21 severance – the reasons why:
SMJ theory
Rule 20 and 21 theory
Have to ask the two questions (1. Same occurrence/transaction 2. Common question of law/fact)
If youre Defenant T, what are you arguing is the transaction? – the insurance k! Gets rid of Defendant H because it has nothing to do with it
If youre the P/Defendant H what are you arguing is the transaction? – logically, the insurance K claim wouldnt be filed if not for Defenant H shotty workmanship
Because defendant T contract and Defendant H contract are related, the rule 20 is met
what are the three tests that all get at the same thing in terms of whether there is a same transaction/occurnece for party/claim joinder
1.Same evidence approach - enough to create transactional relationship
- Same issue of law and fact test (three types)
a.What claims are at issue
b.What law doe they fall under
c.What facts are needed to prove
3Logical relationship test – most common
All get at the same questionL does it make sense to try them all together?
what does rule 14 impleader talk about
allows a defending party (not necessialry the d) to sue a non party who is or may be liable for all or part of the claim against the defending party
what does rule 14(a)(1) say/what does it look like
who is the third party P? third party defendant?
what does the timing look like?
A plaintiff in the case sues a defendant, and the defendant thinks that someone who is not a party yet (ie the non party) is liable to that defendant for part or all of the liability that the defendant will owe to the P.
The defendant bringing the third party in is the third party plaintiff
The non party becomes the third party defendant
the third party p has to get permission from the court more than 14 days after serving its og answer
in a rule 14 impleader what is the relationship between the og claim and the claim made by the third party P against the third party D
it is one of derivative liability
Meaning that one claim cannot succeed unless another one succeeds
in rule 14 impleader, what are the rights of the third party defendant
Right to move to dismiss
They can answer
Pretty much do anything a regular defendant can do
They also have a right to bolster defense of third party plaintiff
They’d want to do this because the third party defendant’s guilt is derivative of the third party plaintiffs
what does rule 14(a)(3) impleader do
Ps claims against a thrid party defendant
tells us what to do if the Og P has claims against the third party defendant
the og p can file claims agains the thrid party d that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as long as the court has jurisdiction over the claims
what does rule 14(a)(5) impleader deal with
third party d claim against a non party
when a third party defendant wants to implead someone else – this rule allows them to do this
Ie like they wanna implead their insurance or something like that
what does 14(a)(2)(D) do
allows thrid party defendants to sue upslope to the og P
what is a third party defendnat required to do once impleaded by the third party p via 14(a)(2)(B)
they have to assert any counterclaims against the third party p under 13a
how is rule 18 connected to rule 14`
Once you have a claim against someone, you can attach anything else you have, whether its related or unrelated
Santana
Santana sued Bobrick, alleging that they and other toilet companies conspired to enforce a product standard that had the effect of excluding Santana’s product from the relevant market
Bobrick filed a third party complaint against Formica
Formica moved to dismiss the third party complaint
Was Bobrick’s action secondary or passive as to allow rule 14 impleading against Formica via indemnity?
In a third party action for indemnity, the third party plaintiff (ie the og D ) must demonstrate that its liability is SECONDARY OR PASSIVE
Indemnification is not available if the party seeking it had any part in causing the injury
If bobrick had been like ‘i am liable BECAUSE of Formica’s fraud’ it would be different; but they are just saying that formica frauded them
There is no derivative claim, which is needed for a rule 14 impleader
The Defendant/third party plaintiff has to be somewhat liable to Plaintiff to even implead another party
Peabody
COME BACK LOL
what is a cross claim
A cross-claim is a claim brought by a plaintiff against a co-plaintiff, or by a defendant against a co-defendant.
