Joinder Flashcards
what does joinder do?
defines the scope of the case - parties & claims
joinder of claims by “plaintiff”
a “plaintiff” may join any claims, RELATED OR UNRELATED, against a single defendant
“plaintiff” will be anyone asserting an initial claim!
this includes joined claims by one defendant against another defendant! (i.e. D1 XCs D2 and then wants to add another claim)
**but the court must have SMJ over those claims
party joinder - multiple plaintiffs/defendants
you MAY join multiple P’s or D’s if:
- arise from same T/O, OR
- raise a common question of law/fact
necessary & indispensable parties - how does it typically come up; 3 inquiries
**typically from a motion by the defense
ask:
(1) is the absentee necessary/required?
(2) if the absentee is necessary, can they be joined (i.e. is it feasible?), and
(3) if the absentee CANT be joined, can the case proceed anyway?
necessary & indispensable parties - 3 tests for “is absentee necessary?”; key note on joint tortfeasors
(1) without the absentee, the court cannot accord complete relief among the existing parties,
»> worried about multiple suits
(2) the absentee’s interest may be harmed if she is not joined, OR
»> **most common test!
(3) the absentee claims an interest that subjects a party (usually the defendant) to a risk of multiple obligations
**key note: joint tortfeasors are NEVER NECESSARY
necessary & indispensable parties - “is joinder feasible?” inquiry
feasible if:
- PJ over the absentee, and
- SMJ over claim by or against absentee (align absentee with the proper side of the “v” if you need to determine diversity)
»> CANNOT RELY ON SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION HERE
necessary & indispensable parties - “what if the absentee cannot be joined?” inquiry
court decides either proceed without the absentee or dismiss the case all together - factors:
- is there an alternative forum available? (like state court)
- what is the actual likelihood of harm to the absentee? (weak claim?)
- can the court shape relief to avoid that harm to the absentee?
**note: if you can’t proceed without them, they become an “indispensable party”
joinder of claims by defendant - counterclaims (what they are; key point to consider; compulsory vs permissive)
generally: once a party asserts a claim against another party, they are opposing parties - any claim back against that OPPOSING party is a counterclaim (typically goes in your Answer)
**always check for SMJ!!
compulsory: arises from the same T/O; use it or lose it
»>THIS IS THE ONLY TYPE OF CLAIM THAT WILL EVER BE COMPULSORY
permissive: does not arise from the same T/O; can sue in separate case
»> SMJ is often the issue
joinder of claims by defendant - crossclaims (what are they; requirements; 2 key points to consider)
generally: a claim against a COparty (not an opposing party)
- MUST arise from same T/O
- NOT compulsory
**always check for SMJ!!
»> for SJ, because a XC must arise from the same T/O, it is automatically within the same CNOF - BUT be mechanical - if the case originally got in on DJ remember the DJ limitation SJ for “plaintiffs”
**remember that once a party asserts a XC against a COparty, any return claim would be a COUNTER claim!
impleader - what is it; what are these claims for; permissive or compulsory?
generally: an impleader is a third party claim that brings in someone NEW
»> as to the impleader claim, the party bringing the claim is called a 3PP and the new party is called the 3PD
- these claims are generally brought by defendant against a new party:
»> the 3PP MUST be asserting that the 3PD IS OR MAY BE subject to indemnity/contribution for the OG plaintiff’s claim
»> note: no T/O test! just the indemnity question - impleader claims are ALWAYS permissive
impleader - process
3PP must file a 3P complaint and have the complaint formally served
**there is a right to implead within 14 days of serving the Answer (after that, court permission is needed)
impleader - claims between OG plaintiff and 3PD
can assert any claims they like, so long as same T/O and have SMJ!
intervention - what it is; timing; intervention of right; permissive intervention; key thing to remember
generally: a non-party absentee uses intervention to bring herself into the case as a plaintiff/defendant
- application to intervene must be “timely”
- intervention “of right”: use test 2 for necessary parties - absentee’s interest may be harmed if she is not joined, AND that interest is not adequately represented by the current parties
»> “as of right” means the court MUST allow intervention - permissive intervention: claim must have a common issue of law/fact with the case
»> at court’s discretion
**claim must have SMJ!
»> for SJ, remember that a claim by an intervenor plaintiff is a claim by a plaintiff and is subject to the DJ restriction on SJ!
class actions - 4 requirements of a class
(1) numerosity: too many class members for practical joinder
(2) commonality: some issue in common to all class members, so that resolution of that issue will decide something for everyone at once (“in one stroke”)
(3) typicality: the rep’s claims are typical of the claims of the class, AND
(4) adequate representation: rep must fairly and adequately rep the class
class actions - 3 types
type 1 - prejudice: class treatment is necessary to avoid harm (prejudice) either to class members or to the non-class party
»> very rare
»> ex) many people have claims to a limited fund of money - if they sue individually, the fund will be depleted before all claimants get to court, leaving later claimants with nothing
**type 2 - injunction/declaratory relief: where defendant treated the class members alike
»> generally CANNOT seek damages
»> most common
»> ex) a class of employees being wrongfully abused by an employer
type 3 - common question or damages: a common question must predominate over individual questions, AND the class action is a superior method to handle the dispute
»> usually see this with mass torts
»> key tipoff is to look for a suit for DAMAGES
