Basic Joinder Flashcards
The fact that the Rules authorize joinder of claims/parties _____ personal or subject jdx
does not confer, power vs. permission
Policy behind joinder
expansively resolve disputes without creating more
A trial court cannot set ___
binding precedent
Normally the consequences of messing up joinder are..
dismissal w/o prejudice and leave to amend
When are the few times joinder=preclusion
18a, 13a, 19
what is the same transaction/occurrence
seems like would use same evidence but very squishy
Rule 18 is about
joinder of claims
Under R18, joined claims ____ arise from same transacton
do not have to
Rule 13 is about
counterclaims and crossclaims
13a
Compulsory counterclaim: must state any opposing claim that arises out of same transaction that is subject matter of opposing party’s claim and does not require adding another party over whom CT cannot get jdx
Exception to 13a
if claim is subject of another pending action
13b
permissive counterclaim- can state any claim not compulsory
13c
Counterclaim need not diminish or defeat recovery sought by opposing party. may request relief that exceeds or differs in kind from the relief sought by opposing party
13g
Cross-claim against co-party, can bring if same transaction
Ds shouldn’t bring any counterclaims if they are making ___
12(b)(2) motion
Under ____, Court can and probably will order a separate trial for permissive counterclaims
42(b)
Podhorn rule
13a preclusion
Rule 13 shows a reluctance to ___
drag in new parties (but not impossible)
Podhorn facts
suing landlords for claims related to tenancy but landlords already sued for back rent and P didn’t file counterclaim at that time
Podhorn holding
Failure to pay back rent same transaction as tenancy concerns
Podhorn weirdness
even if counterclaim was not triable before that same judge, Ps not relieved of obligation to file it (no jdx to hear case but jdx to receive notice and file it -Missouri thing)
Critique of Podhorn
inhabitability could arguably be different transaction, present different evidence
Rule 20 is about
permissive joinder of parties
20(a)(1)
Ps must assert right to relief arising out of same transaction AND common Q of law or fact
20(a)(2)
Ds must have relief asserted against them arising out of same transaction AND common Q
For rule 20, claims need not be the ___ just need to __
same, arise from same set of facts
Under rule 20, once a P has claims arising out of the same facts against multiple Ds, they can then ___
join unrelated claims they have against those Ds
Rule 21 is about
remedy for misjoinder
Rule 21
Misjoinder of parties not a ground for dismissing an action. Court may at any time add or drop a party on motion or on its own. Can also sever any claim against a party
Rule 21 allows the court ..
a lot of discretion, room for lawyering
Cooper holding
rules for motion to sever, rejecting permissive joinder of parties
Cooper reasoning 1
Not same transaction: different apps, different stages and delays for different reasons
Cooper reasoning 2
maybe experiencing same harm but for different reasons
Cooper reasoning 3
Since individual causes for delay, no factual commonality, fact that claims arise from same general law doesn’t establish common Q of law
Cooper reasoning 4
not serving judicial economy, each claim must be looked at individually anyways
Cooper reasoning 5
Not dismissing, split up cases into new cases, how else sever
Misjoinder can be remedied at ___ so some ___ can happen first
any point in the case, fact finding
Generally, a party is necessary if failing to join them ___
would prejudice a party already in the suit
If an action is dismissed because of an indispensable party, the P must ___
sue elsewhere
Rule 19 is about
required joinder of parties
19a`
necessary party- w/o whom court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties OR that person claims interest related to the action where disposing in their absence may impede their ability to protect that interest or leave existing party substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations because of the interest
19b
indispensable party if necessary party cannot be feasibly joined, court must determine whether action should proceed or be dismissed factors to consider (b1-4)
19b1
prejudice to them or existing parties
19b2
potential protective provision to lessen prejudice
19b3
whether judgment without them would be adequate
19b4
whether P would have an adequate remedy if dismissed for nonjoinder
For 19a the third party interest must be __
legally recognized one
For 19, inconsistent judgments or multiple obligations are not the same as __
inconsistent obligations
Daynard rule
Court not required to dismiss an action where only one co-obligor under K is joined as D in the action
Daynard holding
Rules for motion to sever, parties are not necessary and indispensable
Daynard reason 1
complete relief can be accorded because JS liability
Daynard reason 2
Here JS applies to Ks
Daynard reason 3
Daynard obligee (already fulfilled promise)
Daynard 4
judgment will not bind absent party
Daynard reason 5
inconsistent adjudications not same as inconsistent obligations
Daynard reason 6
typical outcome for rule 19 case BUT normally joint tenants necessary and indispensable
Rule 14 is about
impleading
14(a)(1)
D may as third party P bring a claim against a non-party who may be liable to D for all or part of the claim against it
14(a)(2) Third party D must bring
(1) defenses against third party P (2) compulsory counterclaims against third party D
14(a)(2) third party D may bring..
any counterclaim against third party P, any cross claim against another third party D, any defense against P claim, any claim against P arising out of same transaction
14(a)(3)
P may assert against third party D any claim arising out of transaction (unless destroys diversity jdx)
Impleader is always up to ..
judicial discretion
Factors in favor of impleading
efficiency, avoid inconsistent judgments
Factors against impleading
undue delay, complication of issues, potential prejudice to P
Gross is about
impleader can be speculative
Gross rule
When impleading, D does not have to prove the third party would be liable to them if found guilty, just that they may be
Gross holding
allowed impleader
Gross reasoning
purpose of 14(a) efficiency, court had discretion and third party claims from same core of facts so better than starting new case
