Joinder and Supp Jx

Question 1

RPI rule

Answer 1

Real Party in Interest
17(a)(1) action must be filed by the RPI

Question 2

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

Answer 2

The “nucleus of operative fact” (same transaction or occurrence) rule for supplemental jurisdiction

Question 3

Schwartz v. Swan

Answer 3

Rule 20 Joinder of multiple parties sharing transactional relatedness that raise at least one common question of law or fact

Question 4

Aldinger v. Howard

Answer 4

Supplemental jurisdiciton is proper unless the legislature said otherwise - § 1983 prevented bringing a case against the county

Question 5

Joinder by defendant

Dindo v. Whitney

Answer 5

Rule 13(a) bars additional litigation that should have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim (unless party can show estoppel prevented the counterclaim)

Question 6

Danner v. Anskis

Answer 6

Permits plaintiff to cross claim when responding the a counterclaim

Question 7

Exxon corp. v. Allapattah

Answer 7

Amount in controversy doesn’t defeat jx when joining parties

Question 8

Carteret Savings v. Jackson

Answer 8

Party lost right to bring 13(a) compulsory counterclaim in default judgment

Question 9

Markvicka v. Broadhead

Answer 9

Rule 14(a) allows joinder of party who is or may be liable to defending party for all or part of claim - permits joinder before judgment

Question 10

Owens Equipment v. Kroger

Answer 10

As long as party is not in control at the outset of litigation, may use § 1367 for supplemental jurisdiction. If party was in control, case may be dismissed if diverse party is dismissed.

Question 11

Haas v. Jefferson

Answer 11

Rule 19 - if nonjoinder would open defendant to duplicate claims and if joinder of absent party critical for supporting claim or defense