Essay Civil Procedure Flashcards
What is Claim Joinder?
In federal court, a party may join as many claims as it has against an adversary regardless of whether there is any connection between those claims (assuming that there is federal court SMJ, there is no limit on claim joinder).
What is Party Joinder?
In federal court, parties may be joined to a lawsuit if the claims involving those parties derive from the same transaction or occurrence OR at least the same series of transactions or occurrences. (same t/o or series thereof)
Impleader
(3 syllables) Third-Party Claims: Defendants may implead a brand new claim against a brand new third party if that new party may be liable to the defendant FOR ALL OR PART of the defendant’s same liability to the plaintiff (look for “indemnity” [all] or “contribution” [part])
Interpleader
Four Syllables–4 Words: Common Fund + Rival Claimants
Instead of waiting to be sued, the holder of a common fund may come to court as a plaintiff (proactive) and will name, join, interplead as defendants all rival claimants to its common fund (think of insurance company).
Hypo: Paula from New York sues Debra from Wisconsin for $100,000 arising out of a single car crash. Can Debra implead Donald from Wisconsin claiming that Donald may be liable for all or part of Debra’s liability to Paula?
TWO STEPS:
Joinder: Yes, because the new party, Donald, may be liable to Debra, the defendant, for all or part of the same liability that is owed to Paula.
Supplemental Jurisdiction: Yes, because that additional brand new claim will always arise from a common nucleus of operative fact because it derives from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim (Paula v. Debra) and therefore, supplemental jurisdiction is proper. Moreover, the exception in terms of supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to defendants bringing claims (only plaintiffs) and not defendant impleader.
Illinois Insurance Company issues a $10,000 insurance policy on the life of A. After A dies, B from Illinois and C from Missouri each claim to be the sole beneficiary of the policy proceeds. May the Insurance Company file an action against B and C in federal court? Is this is an interpleader action?
THREE STEPS TO ANSWER
This is an interpleader action because as the holder of a common fund, the insurance company is interpleading as defendants all rival claimants (B & C) to its common fund.
Under traditional rule interpleader diversity there must be complete diversity and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. There is not complete diversity because there is an IL insurance company against two defendants, one being from IL. Furthermore, the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 either (10k policy) therefore, under traditional rule for diversity jurisdiction, the federal court would not have SMJ over the claim.
Alternatively, under statutory interpleader diversity, five hundred dollars or more is sufficient and minimal diversity is enough. Therefore, here the amount in controversy meets the 500 dollar requirement. Minimal diversity simply means that any two of the rival claimants are from different states suffices for the minimal diversity requirement. Therefore, under statutory interpleader diversity, the federal court has smj over the claims.
Intervention-definition
Intervention is the act of a non-party who moves to intervene in an on-going lawsuit. That intervenor makes a motion to become a party. To grant the motion for intervention it depends on if the claim is as of right or permissive.
Inderpleader SMJ Rule
Minimal Diversity suffices: under statutory interpleader diversity, $500 or more is sufficient and minimal diversity is enough. Minimal diversity simply means that any two of the rival claimants are from different states suffices for the minimal diversity requirement. Therefore, under statutory interpleader diversity, the federal court has smj over the claims.
What is Intervention As of Right?
Intervenor has the right to intervene if it has an INTEREST which as a PRACTICAL matter will be ADVERSELY affected by the lawsuit and NOT PROTECTED by the parties.
What is Permissive Intervention?
Permissive = Discretion
The federal judge has DISCRETION to grant permissive intervention IF there is a COMMONALITY OF ISSUES between those in the ongoing lawsuit and those affecting the intervenor.
Paula (from New York) brings a claim against Donald (from Wisconsin) for $100,000 arising out of a crash. Portia (from Wisconsin) was injured in the same accident, and moves to intervene in the lawsuit as a plaintiff to file a claim against Donald? How should the court rule?
Two steps Joinder + Jurisdiction
(1) As for joinder: The intervenor (Portia) does have the right to intervene because she has an interest which as a practical matter may be adversely affected by the lawsuit against Donald and not protected by the parties.
(2) As for jurisdiction, there is not supplemental jurisdiction over Portia’s claim. Portia is intervening as a plaintiff and because the only primary jurisdictional basis is for diversity, there can be no supplemental jurisdiction over claims against claimants from the same state against non-diverse parties (Donald).
Indispensable Parties
A nonparty must be joined if its absence would be prejudicial to any party’s right to a full and fair adjudication. A federal judge has the power to compel the joinder of such indispensable parties and must join that indispensable party. If that party cannot be joined (b/c no jurisdiction over nonparty or its claims) Then the court must decide in equity and good conscience whether to go on without that nonparty and risk that prejudice or instead whether to dismiss the entire action for failure to join an indispensable party.
If a federal judge cannot join an indispensable party because of lack of jurisdiction over the person or claim, what action must the judge take?
If that party cannot be joined, the court must decide in EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIOUS whether to go on without that nonparty and risk that prejudice OR instead whether to DISMISS the entire action for failure to join an indispensable party.
