Joinder Flashcards
Cordero v. Voltaire
Court has jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim if it is so related to the plaintiff’s claim that it forms part of the same case or controversy.
Mosley v. General Motors
- “Same transaction or occurrence” can be loosely defined as logically or reasonably related to the events/series of events in controversey.
- In employment discrimination cases, the fact that all claims related to discriminatory policies establishes a question of common law or fact.
Rule 18(a): General Claims Joinder
A party can join any claims, counterclaims or crossclaims as it has against the opposing party.
Rule 13(a): Compulsory Counterclaims
- Compulsory counterclaims must be stated at the time of service and must (A) arise from the same occurrence or transaction as the original claim and (B) does not upset jurisdiction - and not being litigated elsewhere.
Rule 13(b): Permissive Counterclaims
Permissive counterclaims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim and may be raised at any time.
Rule 13(g): Crossclaims
Crossclaims made against co-parties. Crossclaims between co-defendants must arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim; crossclaims between co-plaintiffs must arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the counterclaim.
§1367(a): Supplemental Jurisdiction
If a court has jurisdiction over the original (anchor) claim, they also have supplemental jurisdiction over all claims (including state law claims) related to the original case or controversy.
§1367(b): Supplemental Jurisdiction in Complete Diversity
In cases where complete diversity is the basis of original jurisdiction, courts lack supplemental jurisdiction unless subject-matter jurisdiction is still proper.
§1367(c): Declining Supplemental Jurisdiction
Courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction if:
1. There is a new or complex issue of state law they do not feel equipped to handle
2. The supplemental claim is predominant
3. The court has dismissed all federal claims
4. Other exceptional circumstances
Rule 19(a): Parties Required to Join
A party under jurisdiction must be joined if feasible if:
1. (A) The court cannot offer relief to the existing parties without their presence or (B) the party’s claim is so related to the dispute that not joining would impede the ability of the required party to protect their interest or leave an existing party subject to multiple or inconsistent liabilities.
Rule 19(b): Courts Discretion over Non-Required Parties
If a party is not required to join the court should consider (1) whether the absense would prejudice the judgment, (2) if the prejudice could be lessenemed, (3) whether the judgment in absense would be adequate, (4) whether the remedy would be adequate in absense
Rule 20(a): Permissive Joinder of Parties
- Plaintiff can be joined if (A) they assert a right to relief over the same transaction or occurrence or (B) there is a question of law common to all plaintiffs.
- Defendants can be joined if (A) the right to relief asserted against them arises from the same transaction or occurrence and (B) thereis a question of law or fact common to all defendants.
Rule 14(a): Impleader
A defendant (third party plaintiff) may serve a third party (third party defendant) who is liable for the claim against the original defendant.
Temple v. Synthes
Joint tortfeasors are permissive rather than required parties and therefore do not need to be joined in a single lawsuit.
Price v. CTB
A defendant can implead anyone is may be liable for the damages. The question is not whether the third party defendant is liable but rather whether there is a legal basis to implead the third party defendant.
