Joinder Cases Flashcards
D met P in Fort Scott, D called P a thief saying he stole a horse and kept the horse —> arrested P and confined him in jail with felons 4 to 5 days.
Can a claim of injury to the person and a claim of injury to the character be united in the same lawsuit ?
Yes. A claim of injury of person and injury to the character can be united in the same lawsuit if they rise out of the same transaction. The court determined the facts of the current case specifically the allegedly slanderous statement and false imprisonment constitute one transaction.
A claim of injury to the person and a claim of injury to the character united in the same lawsuit if they rise out of the same transaction
Harris v. Avery (1869)
Excavator and contractor get into agreement for two subcontracts of work— one federal the other non-federal. Excavator brought suit to recover payments on federal job. Contractor denied liability and counterclaim for alleged overpayments and extra cost of completing both jobs. Excavator denied liability and imposed counter claim to recover money due on non-federal job
Counterclaim be construed as compulsory if it does not have the exact same factual background as the original claim ?
Yes. A counter claim is compulsory if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is subject matter of the original claim. The non-federal counter claims have a sufficient logical logical relationship to the original federal job claimed to be considered compulsory counterclaims. The contracts were very interrelated
When counterclaim bar, logical and immediate relationship to original claims —> rose out of the “transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter” making the counterclaim compulsory (Rule 13a)
United States v. Heyward-Robinson Co. (1970)
Southern builders hired by the city of Memphis to build City Hall. Southern builders subcontracted with Alexander and tile company to supply and install marble in the City Hall. Alexander subcontract with LASA to supply the marble. Lasa brought suit against Alexander, Southern builders, and city, claiming that performance studies under the contract, but had not been paid in full
- Alexandra and Southern builders both filed counterclaim claiming that loss had shipped the wrong type of marble, not shipped it on time and did not ship the full amount
- Alexander filed a claim against Southern builders seeking do you subcontract with southern builders?
- In response southern builders filed claim against Alexander for breach of contract
- Alexander also filed a third-party claim against the architect of the City Hall project, claiming negligence supervision on the project
May cross and third-party claims based on different contracts, but that each arise based on the same construction job, be joined in the same trial? who is responsible for the marbles ?
Yes. All the subcontracts, although different relate to the same project and problems from marble used to reck the city halls. If cross and or third-party claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action, a court may assert ancillary jurisdiction over that claim. The phrase transaction occurrence is to be determined broadly so as to avoid multiple suits if possible.
Under federal rule of SPR 13 through H across with her claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action, a court may assert ancillary jurisdiction over that claim
Look at this massive ass suits the lens of Rule 18: get all the claims into the same suit via transaction occurrence
LASA v. Alexander (1969)
Husband and wife staying at hotel room - one of the employees accuse them of not actually being married —> had to leave the hotel. Husband sued for personal tort between parties to wit, inkeep and guest; wife for torturous breach of duty out of same relationship
Does the complaint contain two causes of action which may be joined in the same complaint?
No. Not only are the parties different and the potential elements of damage recoverable by parties are different, but neither party has the right to sue for the benefit of the other.
Joint: under old rules something special needs to connect them
- One parties recovery (or not) does not affect the others
- party share legal relationship and it’s that relationship that’s damaged (here they don’t have one)
Several
- party is recoveries don’t legally affect each other
- individualized torque claims against common tortfeasor
Alternative: I know someone is liable, but I don’t know who so I will sue everyone and let sort it out
- Rule 20s exploration of joint/several liability covers everything
Ryder v. Jefferson Hotel Co. (1922)
Black people filed discrimination suit against GM and attempted to join 10 different suits
Can the court sever 12 counts in the class action against GM for racially discriminatory employment practices even if individual class members have suffered different effects from the alleged discrimination ?
No. So the individual actions happen separately, they shared a logical relationship (I.e., 13(a) they are from the same transaction/occurrence) and shared a common question of law or fact (discrimination by GM).
Rule of jointed applies when (1) right to relief must be a started by our against, each P or D relating to or rising out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences ; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all parties arise in the action
- (1) transaction occurrence we can apply all logically related events entitling a person to institute illegal action against another —> can try all related claims and single proceeding; no need to ID all events
- (2) question of law or fact comment to all parties— does NOT require ALL questions of law fact, raised by dispute be common—just ONE common question of law or fact
- separate trials can be ordered
Mosley v. General Motors Corp (1974)
Women died leaving legacies and requests were $60,000 to large number of legacies summon other states countries. St. Luke’s Hospital was named residuary legateee and devisee and receive bulk of estate. One niece and legatee bought an action to enforce provision of alleged contract were decedent agreed to leave her entire state to her and that St. Luke’s title to the property be quieted. Petitioners made a motion to bring in other Ds and issue them summons as they were “necessary and indispensable parties” to the action —> denied —> petitioners applied for a writ of prohibition to restrain the trial until these other parties should be brought in
Are absentees are not only proper parties, but indispensable parties that their services essential to the jurisdiction of the court proceed in the action?
No. They are not. the case here is where they he may litigate against appearing D’s alone and the absent Ds would not be bound by judgment and property interest would not be affected.
indispensable = person who interest rates or duties will initiatively be affected by any decree which can be rendered in the action— cannot adjudicate their rights without joinder —> dismissal
necessary = persons who are interested in the sense that they might be affected by the decision or whose interest in the subject matter or transaction or that it cannot be completely settled without them; but their interests are separable that the decision may be rendered without affecting them
Bank of California National Ass’n v. Superior Court (1940)
10 years ago car owned by Dutcher, who is not present when the accident occurred was driven by Coinci who had the keys. Lynch and Harris were passengers. Three tort actions brought. Peas already tried the issue of the insurance liability and won. They got a judgment that made the insurance liable and will get their money.
Is a person‘s right to be joined as a party a substantive right preventing the court from continuing without him if the person may be affected by the judgment ?
No. For the district courts verdict, no true interest in joining Dutcher that would outweigh those interests. The court thus determines an equity in good conscience proceeding without Dutcher is appropriate.
Strong systemic interest in preserving issues decided on the merits. We don’t want to reopen that judgment to collateral attack; renders uncertainty to outcomes of lawsuits
Rule 19(b) suggests four interests that must be examined to proceed without a party
- P’s interest in forum—met, wanted to preserve fully litigated judgment
- Ds interest to avoid multiple litigation—not met, no one raised joinder issue
- Outside party’s interest to join—not met Dutcher can still protect his interests outside of suit and can relitigate if necessary
- Court and the public’s interest in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement—Nonexistent because Dutcher could not join on appeal —> no interest of judicial efficiency
Provident Tradesmen’s Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson (1968)
