Joinder Flashcards
What are the two things you must consider when thinking about a joinder fact-pattern?
- Is this joinder procedurally permissible under applicable FRCP?
- Is this joinder jurisdictionally okay (there is a still question about SMJ because FRCP does not confer SMJ)?
Procedural Joinder and Rules
-Joining claims and parties
-Rule 18: JOINDER - open season for claimants (can assert any claim against opposing party; the claims do not have to be related)
-Rule 13: Counter and Cross
- 13(a) - MUST bring COMPULSORY claims (arise out of same T/O of original claim –> logical relationship test - not formalistic, it’s whether the totality of claim has substantial overlap)
- 13(b) - Permissive (any counterclaim that doesn’t have the same T/O; can bring permissive at any time?)
- 13(c) - Cross claim (claim against co-party, must arise out of same T/O BUT it is permissive)
*When a co-party brings a substantive claim against you (UNLESS CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY CLAIM), they are now considered OPPOSING party and compulsory counterclaim kicks in (Rainbow case)
- 13(h) - Pleader (Indemnification or Contribution claim -- additional party who is or may be liable for all or part of claim against current party)
-Rule 20 - Joinder of Plaintiff or Defendant (You can join P or D when claims arise of same T/O and raise at least one common question of law or fact)
Rule 18
Joinder of Claims
A party (plaintiff) asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party (defendant)
Two Types of Counterclaims
- Compulsory: Must be asserted in pending case when it arises from same T/O. If you do not bring a compulsory counterclaim, IT IS GONE (Rule 13(a))
- Permissive: Any CC that is not compulsory. A claim against opposing party that does NOT arise from transaction or occurrence as the same claim against you (in essence, open season for counterclaim)
Test for Determining if particular counter claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence
Logical Relationship Test
Logically related in a way that it makes good sense to try them together? AND consider
1. totality of claims,
2. nature of claims,
3. legal basis of recovery,
4. law involved,
5. respective factual background that is going to drive how going to prove the claim
If a compulsory counterclaim arises out of same transaction or occurrence it automatically satisfies …
1367(a) same case or controversy
Same Case of Controversy
1367(a)
(a) Supplemental jurisdiction can reach all claims a part of same case or controversy
- TWO WAYS TO ASK IF SAME CASE OR CONTROVERSY (I.E., 1367 SATISFIED) = Majority vs Minority rule
Majority View - 1367a Same Case or Controversy
Treat standards of Rule 13 and 1367 as synonymous
-T/O = CC
-No T/O = No CC
-If don’t arise out of same T/O, you’re not apart of same case or controversy
Minority View - 1367a Same Case or Controversy
Loose factual connection (between claim and counterclaim) (Somethings that don’t arise out of same TO bc no logical sense to try together, they are still connected enough to call them same case or controversy)
-Believe section 1367 C/C is more generous
-Some claims that aren’t T/O (Rule 13) can still be in same case or controversy (Section 1367)
Rule 13(a)
Counter and Crossclaims
(a): MUST bring COMPULSORY claims NOW (ones arising out of same T/O)
- Logical Relationship Test: Not formalistic, it is whether the totality of claim (law, respective factual background) has substantial overlap, if so = compulsory)
Steps - Determining Compulsory and Permissive Counterclaims
- Is the claim compulsory?
-Does it make sense to try these cases together? (consider factors such as totality of claims, nature of claims, legal basis of recovery, law involved, respective factual background that are going to drive how going to prove the claim) - If yes, claim is compulsory (Already determined if T/O exists because that makes it compulsory; Automatic jurisdiction)
- If no, claim is permissive
Two Views of Counterclaims & 1367
(1) Majority: If TO, yes CC (1367) = so yes jurisdiction; If no TO, automatic assumption 1367 doesn’t work so no jurisdiction.
(2) Minority (loose factual connection)
Cross claims are permissive or compulsory?
Rule 18
Permissive
Cross claim against co-party: Open season on co-party
BUT once a co-party is hit with a substantive cross claim, it becomes an opposing party and compulsory counterclaim kicks in
Rule 13(b)
Permissive counterclaims: any counterclaim that does not have the same T/O
Rule 13(c)
-Crossclaim against co-party (same side of the v)
-MUST arise out of same T/O but it is PERMISSIVE (you do not have to bring a cross-claim)
-When a co-party brings a substantive claim against you (UNLESS contribution or indemnity), they are now considered OPPOSING party and compulsory counter claim rule kicks in
13(h)
Adding a Party to a Cross or Counterclaim
-You can add a party to cross- or counter-claims IF Rule 19 or 20 is satisfied
Pleader
Rule 14
-Governs joinder
-Indemnification or contribution claim = additional party who is or may be liable for all or part of claim against current party
3rd Party Plaintiff
Person doing the adding
3rd Party Defendant
Person being added
Rule 20 - Joinder of Plaintiff or Defendant
You can join P or D when claims arise out of same T/O and raise at least one common question of law or of fact
Joinder of Necessary Party - Steps
- Is it a necessary party?
- Is it feasible to add them?
- If is it not feasible, court weights 19(b) factors
+THERE MUST BE SMJ! (diversity, FQ, or supplemental jurisdiction)
Step 1 - Joinder of Necessary Party - Determining if Necessary Party - 3 Qs
Rule 19
An absent party is necessary if (CIO):
1. Complete relief cannot be afforded without absent party (but typically can always afford complete relief) (19(a)(1))
2. Absent party has an interest that will be impaired (prejudice absentee prong) (19(a)(1)(b))
3. Absent party’s absence will lead to double/multiple or inconsistent obligation against existing party
-Double obligation: twice on same contract
-Inconsistent Obligation: two things that are both impossible to do
(CIO) Acronym: Complete relief, impaired interest, obligation
Are joint tortfeasors necessary parties required to be joined?
NO
Step 2 - Joinder of Necessary Party - Is it feasible to join the necessary but absent party?
- If yes, they are joined.
- If NO (infeasible because of SMJ, PJ, or Venue) –> LOOK AT STEP 3
Step 3 - Joinder of Necessary Party - Infeasible to join then consider …
19(b) Factors - should the show go on? Should we HEAR it?
1. Yes there is prejudice but HOW MUCH prejudice will there be to the parties if the case still goes on
2. If there is prejudice, is there someone we can do to ELIMINATE OR REMOVE prejudice (telling plaintiff to accept limit on damages)
3. If we proceed, can we say that judgement without the absent person is adequate?
4. Does plaintiff have adequate remedy if claim is dismissed
HEAR (Test Acronym):
How much prejudice?
Elimination or removal of prejudice possible?
Adequate judgment without absent party?
Remedy adequate for P?
No Independent stand-alone jurisdiction –> Supplemental jurisdiction
For use with jurisdictional question and there is not independent stand-alone jurisdiction and there is a supplemental jurisdiction question, you have to pull up 1367(a)
1367 (a) - Authorize, Grant = Same case or controversy
* Majority rule: tag-along is same case or controversy if arise out of same t/o. t/o = logical reasoning test),
* Minority rule: same case or controversy question. Just ask whether there is a loose factual question between anchor and tag-along. This is easier to meet)
If 1367(b) kicks in, that does not mean that it is golden and there is supplemental jurisdiction → 1367(b) = EXCEPTION
* FINGER TEST
* 1367(b) - must read; ONLY applies of original jurisdiction is founded SOLELY ON DIVERSITY
* Only removes supplemental jurisdiction for CERTAIN claims
* Text at end/clause at end of this 1367b = we ignore this for our class
* Best way to look at 1367(b) = claim by claim
1367(c) - Discretionary provision – court may decline or keep jurisdiction
* Just need to know why this exists and why SCOTUS wrote this
* Assume court will always assert jurisdiction unless prof tells us to
* Jurisdictional fact pattern about sup jurisdiction, we can assume that court will retain jurisdiction (1367a)
Can you have supplemental jurisdiction over ppl who did not meet the amt in controversy
Possibly
Kennedy - Yes if only Plaintiff meets it, you can supplemental jurisdiction others, assuming that no 1367b exceptions apply
-For example: P joined family under supp juris because it arose out of same case and controversy –> 1367b did not takeaway in Starkist case
- Question to ask: Have to look to see if OPPOSING PARTY was made a party under rule 20 (OR ANY OTHER RULES LISTED IN RULE 1367b)? If yes, 1367b REMOVES SUPP JURIS
In just DIVERSITY actions, all claims between plaintiff and defendant on original jurisdiction is completely destroyed – this is our takeaway
-This means that if we see a case where we have multiple plaintiffs joined under Rule 20 or Rule 23, then we should look at ALL Rule 20 plaintiffs and Rule 23 named plaintiffs, if any are non-diverse from defendant, then we are DONE
-Thus, There is NO JURISDICTION AT ALL – 1367(a) does not apply
