Joinder + 3rd Party Practice Flashcards
Collateral Estoppel [Issue Preclusion]
- Any issue [of fact/law] that was actually litigated and decided in one action cannot be relitigated in subsequent suit [you don’t necessarily even need same parties]
- [While Permissive Joinder of claims under Rule 18(a) is that you “may” bring claims, you MUST bring every claim that arises out of the same transaction/occurence, otherwise you will likely lose it.]
Res Judicata [Claim Preclusion]
- Prevent re-litigation of same/substantially the same cause of action between the same parties in a subsequence lawsuit in the same court
- Full Faith and Credit Requires preclusive effect to be honored by different court system
Joinder of Claims
- Party asserting claim/counterclaim/3rd-party claim may join, as independent/alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.
- [if you don’t bring all claims arising out of the “same transaction/occurence”–> you may be estopped/barred from bringing them later(res judicata; collateral estoppel)]
Required Joinder of Parties
- identifies persons who have not been named as parties but are necessary for a just adjudication of the underlying dispute.
- [Such persons: not initiatlly named as parties either bc Plaintiff decided not to join the additional persons, or could not join them for jurisdictional reasons, or bc the additional person refused the Plaintiff’s invitation to join.]
-** Three Situations Absentee Should be Joined:** - **Plaintiff cannot get relief **from the named party
- Absentee may be prejudiced by the failure to join
- Defendant may be prejudiced by the failure to join the absentee
- Thus any party whose absence results in any of the 3 problems identified in above of the Rule is a party whose joinder is compulsory, if feasible.
Permissive Joinder of Parties [Persons who may Join or be Joined]
- Plaintiffs may be joined in one action IF:
-1.They** assert any right to relief** jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction/occurence/series of transactions/occurances [sufficient overlap of facts+evidence; claims logically related to each other]AND
- 2.** Any question of law/fact common to all plaintiffs will arise** in the action - Defendants may be joined in one action IF [Same two-part test as Plaintiff rule]:
- 1. Any right to relief is asserted against them jointly/severally/in the alternative with respect to/arising out of the same transaction/occurence/series of transactions/occurences; AND
- 2. ** Any question of law/fact common to all plaintiffs will arise** in the action
Counterclaim
Claim by defendant against Plaintiff
Crossclaim
- Claim by plaintiff against other plaintiff; OR
- Defendant against another defendant [same side of v.]
Compulsory Counterclaim
Pleading MUST state as a counterclaim:
- any claim that [at the time of service] the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim:
- 1. **arises out **of the transaction/occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; AND
- 2. does NOT require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jx
- [Counterclaim may seek **any kind of relief **that the court can give.
- Relief may or may not be related to the plaintiff’s claim.
- Counterclaim- may ask for relief that neutralizes/cancels out plaintiff’s claim/it may seek relief exceeding plaintiff’s desired relief.
Permissive Counterclaim
- Pleading may state as Counterclaim against opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.
- [the parties are in litigation anyway so efficent to assert all claims in one case
- Rule permits a defendant to choose either to assert the claim as a counterclaim OR to file seperate lawsuit]
Crossclaim Against a Coparty
Pleading- may state as a crossclaim** any claim **by one party against a coparty IF the claim arises out of the transaction/occurence that is the subject matter of the original action.
- Are these claims Compulsory?
- Cross-Claims are always Permissive.
Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties
- Misjoinder of parties: NOT grounds for dismissing an action. Court may at any time[on just terms] add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.
Consoldiation Seperate Trials
- Consolidation
- If action before court involve** common q of law/fact**–> court may:
- 1. Join for hearing/trial any/all matters at issue
- 2. Consolidate the actions; OR
- 3. Issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
[Only for “common q of law/fact” NOT “same transaction/occurence”] - Seperate Trials
- For convenience/avoid prejudice/expedite/economize–> Court may order seperate trial of one or more seperate issues/claims/crossclaims/counterclaims/3rd party claims
- When ordering seperate trial, court must preserve any federal right to a jury trial.
When a** Defending **Party May Bring in a **3rd Party **
- Defending party [as 3rd party plaintiff] may serve a summons+ complaint on nonparty who** is/may be liable to it for all/part of the claim against **it…
- [Court’s discretion to allow Impleader [Defendant bringing in 3rd-party Def.]
- Defendant’s proposed 3rd party claims must arise from”same aggregate/core of fact which is determinative of the plaintiff’s claim” to serve judicial economy.]
When a** Plaintiff ** May Bring in a **3rd Party **
- When a claim is asserted against Plaintiff, Plain. may bring in a 3rd party, if this rule would allow Defendant to do so.
- There MUST have derivative liability w/ respect to 3rd Party Defendant. [Can’t simple finger point for blame - must have an independent cause of action against 3rd party Def.]
- Whaat kinds of causes of action?
- Indemnification –[by contract]
- Subrogation – [by insurance]
- Contribution – [by statute]
What makes a Valid Impleader?
- Impleader can only be used to bring in one not already a party.
- Original Defendant has to** have a claim** against the new party it is trying to implead [the 3rd party Def.] (If A sues B, and B says, “It’s not my fault, it’s C’s fault,”= NOT ENOUGH. Instead, B needs a theory of liability against C.)
- For B to have a valid impleader against C, B needs theory of liability v. C, AND it has to be for all/part of A’s claim against B.
[Term. note: When a Defendant “impleads” a 3rd party, this is the only time that the Defendant will be thought of as a plaintiff [3rd party Plaintiff]]
