Joinder

Question 1

Permissive Claim Joinder: rule and standard

Answer 1

Rule 18(a)

Ex) P v. D on contract claim. P can join a tort claim against D in that same action.

No standard. Unlimited uses.

Must have SMJ over both (or SJ).

Subject to res judicata

Question 2

Crossclaims: Rule and standard

Answer 2

Rule 13(g)

Standard:

• -allowed if same t/o OR
• -property in the original action OR
• -indemnification sought.

Once you are no longer coparties, 18(a) allows any other claims and 13(a) is triggered. 13(g) and 18(a) claims can be aggregated.

Question 3

Permissive Party Joinder: what rule, what standard.

Answer 3

Rule 20

Ex) 2 Ps against D
Ex) 1 P against 2 Ds

Standard: (1) common questions of law or fact and (2) same t/o or series of t/o

NO SJ against Rule 20 Ds.

Question 4

Counterclaims: permissive and compulsory

Answer 4

Rule 13(a) - if same t/o, then compulsory.
--Exceptions: (1) if Rule 19 requires the party to join, then it's not compulsory; (2) if counterclaim is already pending somewhere else, then no compulsory; (3) quasi in rem cases are not compulsory. 

Rule 13(b) - permissive 
--Anything can be a counterclaim, just have to get SMJ.

Question 5

Third Party Claims

Answer 5

Rule 14

Deadline: 14 days after serving original answer, after which you need the court’s permission

Third parties need PJ

Standard: must be seeking indemnification

No res judicata

Once you are no longer coparties, 18(a) allows any other claims and 13(a) is triggered.

Question 6

Third Party Counterclaims

Answer 6

Rule 14(a)(2)(D): TPD counterclaim against original P.

Standard: same t/o

SMJ required

Question 7

Joining non-parties (but not impleader and not voluntary): Necessity

Answer 7

Rule 19

(1) Harm to parties seeking relief: Can’t get relief to existing party w/o them (money probably not enough, joint tortfeasors don’t qualify). OR

(2) Harm to non-party: Non-party’s interest impaired by absence (e.g. limited fund for damages)
- -Is there an existing party that adequately represents the non-party? If so, then not necessary.

(3) Harm to parties against whom claims are asserted: current party exposed to incompatible obligations (money not good enough)

Question 8

Joining non-parties (but not impleader and not voluntary): Feasibility

Answer 8

Rule 19

(1) There is PJ
(2) There is SMJ
(3) Venue is appropriate

Question 9

Joining non-parties (but not impleader and not voluntary): Indispensability

Answer 9

Rule 19 (hard to test this one)

If necessary party cannot feasibly be joined, then court will dismiss the case if:

(1) Absence of the non-party will cause prejudice
(2) There is no ability to lessen the prejudice
(3) Judgment rendered in non-party’s absence would be inadequate
(4) If action were dismissed, claimant would have an adequate alternative (most important)

Question 10

Intervention of Right

Answer 10

Rule 24(a)

Standard for allowing intervention of right:

(1) Claim interest relating to property or t/o in current action;
(2) Disposing of the action may impair/impede that interest;
(3) Existing parties do not adequately represent the intervening party; and
(4) Motion must be timely (no specific requirement though)

NO SJ for intervening Ps

Question 11

Permissive intervetion

Answer 11

Rule 24(b)

Must have common question of law or fact.

If yes, then Court weighs these factors and may grant intervention:

(1) Prejudice to P or non-party
(2) Overlap between P and non-party’s cases
(3) Progress in P’s case
(4) Available alternative options
(5) Timeliness of motion