Joinder Flashcards
An environmental group, wishing to stop the issuance by a federal agency of a mining permit to a coal company, commences an action in federal court against the federal agency, seeking, among other things, a permanent injunction barring the issuance of the permit to the coal company.
If the coal company seeks to join the litigation as a matter of right, must the federal court grant the motion?
A nonparty may intervene in an action as a matter of right in two situations. (i) a nonparty may intervene when it has an unconditional right to do so by a federal statute. (ii) a nonparty may intervene if (a) it has an interest in the property or transaction the is the subject matter of the action; (b) the disposition or resolution of the action may as a practical matter impair the nonparty’s ability to protect its interest; and (c) the nonparty’s interest is not adequately protected by an existing party in the action.
Here, although no federal statute gives the coal company the right to intervene, it does have an interest at stake in the action-its interest in getting the mining permit issued to it-and its ability to obtain the permit will as a practical matter be impaired if the environmental group succeeds in getting an injunction against its issuance. Thus, the coal company should be allowed to intervene unless the court concludes that the federal agency adequately represents the coal company’s interest.
A homeowner, a citizen of State A, hired an electrician, a citizen of State B, to fix the wiring in her basement and hired a gas worker, also a citizen of State B, to install a new gas stove in her kitchen. Unfortunately, the home caught fire and burned down while they were both working on their separate jobs. The homeowner sued the gas worker for negligence in federal court in State A, seeking $100,000. The homeowner promptly served the gas worker, and the gas worker timely filed an answer with the court. One month after filing the answer, the gas worker moved to file and serve a third-party complaint against the electrician, alleging that the electrician was the sole cause of the accident.
Which of the following arguments is most likely to achieve the electrician’s goal of dismissal of the third-party complaint?
A - The gas worker’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint is untimely and thus should be denied as a matter of law.
B - The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint because the electrician’s claim and the gas worker’s claim do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.
C - The gas worker’s claim against the electrician is not a proper third-party claim.
D - Dismissing the gas worker’s claim will not impede his ability to protect his rights in a separate action.
(C) The electrician’s best argument is that the gas worker’s claim against the electrician is not a proper third-party claim. Under Rule 14, a defendant may assert a third-party claim against “a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.” In other words, a third-party claim must be a derivative claim; the third-party plaintiff must be seeking indemnification or contribution from the third-party defendant.
Here, the gas worker’s claim is not that the electrician must indemnify him or that the electrician is a joint tortfeasor who may be jointly liable under principles of contribution. Rather, the gas worker is alleging that he (the gas worker) is not liable and that the electrician is. Because the claim is not derivative, it is not properly asserted as a third-party claim under Rule 14.
