Joinder Flashcards
Rule 18
Joinder of Claims.
A party asserting a claim as an original claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or 3rd party claim, may join as many claims (independent or alternate) as he has against an opposing party
Limitation:
i. There must be at least one existing valid claim first (this is the distinction b/n Rule 18 and Rules 13 and 14).
rule 13
Compulsory Counterclaims: A defendant must bring a counterclaim if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the plaintiff’s claim; he cannot bring it in another lawsuit.
Limitations:
i. The counterclaim must exist at the time the plaintiff sues
ii. The counterclaim cannot be the subject of a pending action in another court.
Permissive Counterclaim: A defendant may be allowed to bring any counterclaim against a plaintiff, even if it does not arise out of the same transaction in occurrence.
Crossclaim: a. A pleading may state as a cross claim any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of THE TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE that is the subject matter either of the original claim or of a counterclaim therein or relating to any property that is the subject matter of the original transaction.
Joinder of additional Parties:
Persons other than those made parties to the original action may be made parties to a counterclaim or cross-claim in accordance with the provisions of Rules 19 and 20.
4 Tests to determine whether a claim and coutnerclaim arise from the same transaction
a. Whether there is a logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim
b. Whether the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim are largely the same
c. Whether res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule
d. Whether substantially the same evidence supports or refutes the plaintiff’s claim as well as defendant’s counterclaim
Rule 20
Permissive Joinder of Parties:
All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs/defendants if
i. They arise from the same transaction or occurrence or the same series of transactions or occurrences; and
ii. The claims involve a common question of law or fact.
Separate Trails:
The court has the discretion to order separate trials or make such other orders as will prevent delay or prejudice. See also Federal Rule 42(b).
rule 21
Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties:
- Misjoinder/Nonjoinder are not grounds for dismissal of an action
- Parties may be added or dropped on motion of any party or by the court’s own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.
rule 14
By Defendants: 3rd Party Claims:
A defendant may bring in a 3rd party to share in its liability:
i. Defendant becomes the 3rd party plaintiff
ii. The 3rd party becomes the 3rd party defendant
- There MUST BE A LEGALLY COGNIZANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL D AND 3RD PARTY D
(EX: tort, or contractual) - The 3rd party defendant’s liability to the original defendant must be the same as the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff.
- The 3rd party defendant may assert any claim against the plaintiff arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the same subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the original defendant
- The plaintiff may assert any claim against the 3rd party defendant arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the same subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the original defendant
- When Plaintiff May Bring In 3rd Party
a. After there is a counterclaim against the original plaintiff, then the plaintiff may bring in another party
b. Same rules apply as above. - Under Rule 14(a), a defendant may assert a claim against anyone not a party to the original action if that 3rd party’s liability is in some way dependant upon the outcome of the original action.
- Even though it may arise out of the same general set of facts as the main claim, a 3rd party claim will not be permitted when it is based on a separate and independent claim.
What Questions to ask when joining parties? 3 questions
- Do I have permission to join under the joinder rules?
- Do I have subject matter jurisdiction over who I am joining?
- If not, does supplemental jurisdiction apply?
a. Is the claim based solely on diversity?
b. Is claim by the plaintiff?
c. Is it being brought against a party under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24?
d. Is the claim inconsistent w/ section 1332 (Diversity)?
Rule 19 (If Feasible)
Compulsory Joinder:
Persons to be Joined if Feasible:
A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be joined in the action if
i. in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or
ii. the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may
1. as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or
2. leave any of the persons already parties subject to substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.
rule 19 (If not Feasible)
If joinder of such persons as those described above is not feasible, the court has a choice to make:
i. Dismiss the case (if the party is indispensable); or
ii. Move forward w/o the party.
Factors to be Considered:
i. To what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties
ii. To what extent the prejudice can be lessened or avoided
iii. Whether judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate
iv. Whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the motion is dismissed for nonjoinder.
3. It is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in single lawsuit – a tortfeasor with the usual joint and several liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability.
4. A person does not become an indispensable party to an action to determine rights under a contract simply b/c that person’s rights or obligations under an entirely separate contract will be affected by the result of the action
Rule 24 (Intervention as a Right)
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action (intervention must be allowed)
a. If there is statute that grants an unconditional right to intervene; or
b. If the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the claimants are so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect that interest, UNLESS THEIR INTERESTS ARE ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED BY EXISTING PARTIES
i. Almost verbatim to Rule 19(a)(2) except for one thing
ii. If the party can be adequately protected by someone else in the lawsuit then they will not allow them into the suit.
Rule 24 (Permissive Intervention)
Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action
a. If there is statute that grants an conditional right to intervene; or
b. If an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact.
2. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
iii. The movant in intervention is not strictly required to have a direct interest in outcome of the lawsuit – they just need to have some interest which is significantly protectable
1. How are they going to be affected in the future?
2. Will they be harmed in some way?
3. Is it something worth protecting?
- If an applicants interest is similar to, but not identical with, that of one of the parties, a discriminating judgment is required on the circumstances of the particular case, but he ordinarily should be allowed to intervene, unless it is clear that the other party will provide adequate representation for the absentee – the possibility of divergence of interest need not be great.
- One is not bound by a judgment in personam in litigation in which he is not designated as party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process – A party seeking a judgment on another cannot obligate that person to intervene; he must be joined
Rule 22
Interpleader:
1) Persons having claims against the plaintiff, a.k.a. the would be defendant or the stakeholder, may be joined as defendants and required to interplead when the plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability and could be subjected to inconsistent judgments.
2) Rule 22 Interpleader is generally only used when all of the claimants are from the same state.
Statutory Interpleader:
i. Diversity is satisfied so long as there is diversity b/n two of the claimants, as opposed to complete diversity (This is constitutional b/c complete diversity is not a constitutional requirement)).
ii. Amount in controversy is only $500 (Again, amount in controversy is not a constitutional requirement)
iii. Personal jurisdiction can be satisfied by nationwide service of process
iv. Venue will lie in any district where any claimant resides.
