Joinder of Claims and Parties

Question 1

How is joinder interrelated to SMJ

Answer 1

still need independent basis of jurisdiction (IBJ) to get into federal court

Question 2

what is the basic question of joinder of claims and parties

Answer 2

Is there a federal rule that allows the addition of another claim or party beyond the basic litigation unit?

Question 3

What rule governs the joinder of claims

Answer 3

Rule 18
Joinder of new claims: Once a party has one properly filed claim, they can bring as many claims if the court has jurisdiction. This applies to the plaintiff’s claims as well as the defendant’s counterclaims (e.g., suing the plaintiff) or cross-claims (i.e., D v. D or P v. P).

Question 4

what are the types of claims included in Rule 18 (joinder of claims)

Answer 4

• Originating Claims: A claim from the original PL to start the litigation
• Counterclaim: A responsive claim; Is a claim by a party against whom an initial claim was filed (usually original D counterclaims after the originating PL files the originating claim à filed in an answer
• Crossclaims: Filed by one co-party against another (P against P, D against D)
• Third Party Claims (by and against third parties): A claim filed against a party brought into the case, or filed by the third party that was brought into the case.

Question 5

What is Rule 13

Answer 5

Rule 13 governs counterclaims and crossclaims

Question 6

What are rules 13(a) and 13(b)

Answer 6

• FRCP 13(a): Federal law recognizes compulsory counterclaims where the defendant must bring a counterclaim at the time of the service if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or the defendant loses the right to bring the claim later.
  - if the counterclaim is already pending in separate litigation, do not need to file the counterclaim in current suit
  - there must be IBJ over the counnterclaim
• FRCP 13(b): A permissive counterclaim (i.e., one not arising out of the same transaction or occurrence) may be filed but does not have to be filed.

Question 7

what is the same transaction or occurence test under Rule 13(a)(b)

Answer 7

Step 1. Similar to the common nucleus of operative facts test from Gibbs, but not quite as expansive
a. We want a little more factual and legal overlap than we needed in the common nucleus standard
b. Thus, if the Same Transaction test is satisfied, then the common nucleus test is automatically satisfied. BUT, there can be situations in which the same transaction test is not satisfied, yet the common nucleus test is satisfied.
i. Generally, in such instances even if the court can asserts supplemental jurisdiction under §1367(a), they generally exercise their discretion in §367(c) to elect to not hear the claim. (see more below)

Step 2: Asks:
a. Is there is a substantial factual and legal overlap such that it makes sense to litigate the claims together?
You’re looking for sufficient factual and legal overlap
b. Do the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (event)?

Step 3: If test is satisfied a Compulsory counterclaim

 Quick Summary
* Factual overlap?
* Legal overlap?
* Logically Related?

Question 8

what case is an example of Rule 13(a)(b)

Answer 8

Law offices of Jerris Leonard v. Mideast Systems
- showed that D’s claim satisfiied the same transaction test and was therefore barred because D allowed default judgement to be entered rather than file a compulsory counterclaim
-there was significant factual overlap because malpracttice claim stemmed from reasoning to not pay the attorney fees

Question 9

Discuss Rule 13(b) and supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 9

Old Rule:
a. If a counterclaim is compulsory (satisfies the same transaction test) then it automatically satisfies supplemental jurisdiction §1367(a)
b. If a counterclaim is permissive (does NOT satisfy same transaction test) then it automatically does NOT pass supplemental jurisdiction standard.
i. Compulsory counterclaim = supp. Jur. satisfied
ii. Permissive counterclaim = supp. Jur. never satisfied

New/Emerging Rule:
a. If a counterclaim is compulsory, it will always satisfy supplemental jurisdiction §1367(a)
b. However, a permissive counterclaim might also satisfy supplemental jurisdiction §1367(a).
c. Same transaction test is a little tougher to satisfy than the common nucleus test.
i. Therefore, there can be instances in which a counterclaim may not pass the same transaction test (be permissive) yet nevertheless satisfy the common nucleus test
ii. Then it comes down to discretion as to whether the court will exercise jurisdiction (1367 (c))

Summary of new rule
* Is there IBJ?
* Do the rules allow? – Rule 13 (counterclaim)
-Is there IBJ (diversity or federal question)
-Is supplemental jurisdiction satisfied
- If yes, court can likely hear the case + counterclaim (up to discretion)

Question 10

What is rule 13(g)

Answer 10

• governs crossclaims against a co-party
• Cross-claims: A cross-claim is a claim asserted by one party against a coparty (i.e., D v. D or P v. P). It must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the initial claim or of a counterclaim. A cross-claim is not compulsory.
• Once a crossclaim is filed, the parties become adverse parties regarding the crossclaim
  Thus, compulsory counterclaim rule (13(a)) comes into effect once the parties are adverse
  Only triggered by substantive crossclaims, NOT indemnity crossclaims

Question 11

what case is an example of Rule 13(g)

Answer 11

RMG v. Atlantis Submarines

• in the initial suit, customer sues both parties RMG and Atlantis as co-defendants
• Atlantis then files breach of contract crossclaim agaisnt RMG and RMG responds with indemnittty claim
• RMG then files suit against Atlantis for negligence but the court dismisses it because under 13(g) and 13(a) because once a substantive cross claim is filed under 13(g), parties become opposing parties under 13(a) so all compulsory counterclaims must be filed

Question 12

What does Rule 20 govern

Answer 12

Rule 20 governs permissive joinder of parties

Core Concepts
- This is the permission slip that allows you to join multiple parties in a single action
- A PL or multiple PLs can sue a single D or multiple Ds
- Utilizes a version of the same transaction test (legal and factual overlap such that it makes sense to bring these claims together)
- BUT, this rule adds “series of transactions” to the test
- “Same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”
- NEED a common question of law to connect all the parties
- EX of Series of Transactions à When parties are involved with technically distinct transactions, but those transactions are a part of a larger series

Question 13

What is the approach for Rule 20

Answer 13

Step 1: Start with IBJ – Establish IBJ over original claim
- Is there an IBJ that initially gets parties into federal court?
- 1331 or 1332

Step 2: Identify rule that allows for joinder
- Rule 20 (or another rule) – Allows for joinder b/c of 2a + 2b
- Step 2a: Then apply same transaction/series of transactions test AND Is there legal + factual overlap such that it makes sense to litigate the claims together?
- Step 2b: Identify the common question of law/fact that applies to all parties
- Make sure you articulate this—it may seem straight forward, but want to be as thorough as possible

Step 3: Is there IBJ over additional claims
- 1331 or 1332 over additional claims?

Step 4: If no, do other parties claims satisfy 1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction? – 1367 Analysis
(a) – Common Nucleus of operative facts satisfied?
(b) – Diversity ONLY
- Is claim made by PL against DEFENDANTS brought into case using Rule 14, 19, 20, 24?
- Were PLs brought in using rule 19 or 24?
- Check if claim would be consistent with 1332
- Complete diversity, Amount in Controversy, Kroger Evasion
- KEEP IN MIND COMPLETE DIVERSITY ONLY APPLIES TO THE ORIGINAL LITIGATION UNIT
(c) – Factors to exercise discretion
- Can decline to exercise jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if –
1) The claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law,
2) The claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
3) The district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
4) In exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction

Question 14

What case is an example of Rule 20 and supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 14

Maria v. Starkist

Step 1: IBJ to get into fed court > 1332, diversity + AIC satisfied for Maria

Step 2: Rule that allows for Joinder > Yes, Rule 20 – emotional distress arises from Maria’s injury and there is a common question of law or fact

Step 3: IBJ over Additional Claims? > NO, emotional distress is state tort, no diversity b/c parents + sister do NOT meet AIC

Step 4: Supplemental Jurisdiction over Additional Claims? >
(a) – Common nucleus of op. facts – Yes, same injury
(b) – Diversity analysis
Yes, in court based on diversity (1332)
Claim made by PL against Ds using rule 14, 19, 20, 24?
- Clearly NO
Are parties proposed to be joined as PLs using rule 19 or 24?
- NO – Rule 20
Would this violate Kroger evasion?
- NO - the claim was not made by the P against persons made parties under the rules, nor were Rules 19 or 24 invoked

Question 15

What does Rule 13(h) govern?

Answer 15

Rule 13(h) governs counterclaim and crossclaim

FRCP 13(h): “Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counterclaim or crossclaim”
i. So joinder under 13(h) must accord with Rule 19 or 20
ii. Gives parties filing counterclaims and crossclaims the same joinder options a plaintiff would have under Rule 20

Question 16

What is one case that is an example of Rule 13(h)

Answer 16

Schoot v. US

D counterclaimed and named Vorbau as a party to the counterclaim under 13(h)

Is there an IBJ that gets the case into federal court?
Yes — § 1331 Federal Question (federal law creates rights of action for tax claims

Is there a rule that joins Vorbau and allows for the counter claim?
Rule 13(h)
Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counterclaim or crossclaim (this rule must be brought with Rules 19 or 20)
When a 3rd party is joined into an action under FRCP 13(h), they cannot challenge venue
Rule 20(a)(1) — persons may join in one action as Ps if:
(A) They assert any right to relief with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; AND
(B) Must have at least one question of law or fact common to all Ps
Rule 20(a)(2) is the same as above but for Ds, not Ps.
Here, Vorbau can be joined as a D to a counterclaim because he and Schoot’s alleged tax irresponsibility from the same activity (same series of transactions) gave rise to all of the government’s claims. The Gov listed 10 common questions of law/fact (ie. Who prepared the company’s tax returns?)
(13a allows for the cross and counter claims)

Is there an IBJ for the counterclaim?
Counter = balance for unpaid taxes
Yes, invoked tax claims (so Federal Question)

Question 17

What case is another example of rule 13(h)

Answer 17

Hartford v. Quantum

Is there an IBJ that gets us into federal court? Yes, § 1332

Do any rules allow for joinder of Property Insurers?
Rule 13(h) allows us to apply the standard in Rule 20(a)(2)
Rule 20(a)(2): Permissive Joinder of Parties
Does claim against new party arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences?
Yes, both claims based on the exact same facts
Is there a common question of law or fact?
Yes, the heat exchanger failure

Is there an IBJ for Quantum’s claim against Property Insurers?
No — fails under §§ 1331 and 1332

Is there supplemental jurisdiction over Quantum’s claim against Property Insurers?
§ 1367(a) — Common nucleus of operative facts?
Satisfied
§ 1367(b)
Is the case solely in federal court based on diversity?
Yes
Is it a claim by P bringing in Ds under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24; OR was the P joined by Rules 19 or 24?
No, the claim was brought by D (they acted like a P in their counterclaim, but they are still the D)
1367(c)
Should keep the claims in the same case because same fact; better to do it all together in case one court calls it an explosion, and another calls it an accident

Question 18

What is Rule 14

Answer 18

Rule 14 governs third party impleading (indemnity claims)

Rule 14(a)(1) - permits an impleader or indemnity claim by a defending party against a nonparty not yet in the suit (ex: third party defendant)
* Indemnity claim is when the defending party asserts that the absent party is or may be liable for all or part of any judgement entered against the defendant
* A defendant asserting this claim is a third party plaintiff

Rule 14(a)(2)(B) - permits counterclaims by the third party defendant against the third party plaintiff and crossclaims by the third party defendant against a co party third party defendant

Rule 14(a)(2)(D) - allows the third party defendant to assert a transactionally related claim against the original plaintiff

Rule 14(a)(3) - allows original plaintiff to file transactionally related claims against the third party defendant

Rule 14(b) - When a Plaintiff May Bring in a Third Party
Basically, saying same thing as (a)(1), just regarding a PL
All this changes is that a PL files a 14(b) motion rather than 14(a)

Any Rule 14 indemnity claim will always automatically pass the common nucleus of operative facts test if it gets there b/c indemnity claims necessarily arise out of a common nucleus.
BUT still need to assess Kroger Evasion

Question 19

What case is an example of Rule 14

Answer 19

Walkill v. Tectonic

This case showed that D tries to use Rule 14 to bring in Poppe by saying Poppe is liable and we are not

substantive defense is NOT an inndemnity claim

Rule 14 CANNOT be used to say that the other party is responsible or liable

It can only be used to say “IF WE are liable, then you have to indemnify us,” not “you are responsible and we are not.”

Question 20

What case is another example of Rule 14

Answer 20

Guaranteed Systems

Rule 14(a): A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.

Rule 14(b): Everything allowable in 14(a) can be used by a P in a defending position

Here, P is defending against a counterclaim from D

Court incorrectly dismisses P’s motion to bring in the 3rd Party D for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over the indemnity claim
Court incorrectly analyzed § 1367(b):
They said that complete diversity would be violated and that this was a potential Kroger evasion

Correct analysis:
§ 1367(a): passes common nucleus of operative facts test
§ 1367(b):
In federal court solely on diversity?
Yes
Is it a claim by P against someone made a party under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24; OR did the P enter the case by Rules 19 or 24?
If either of these two are triggered, then is the claim inconsistent with jurisdictional requirements of § 1332 (diversity AND amount-in-controversy)?
Yes, claim by P against someone made a party under Rule 14
But not inconsistent with complete diversity or amount in controversy
Complete diversity only required between Ps and Ds, not 3rd Party Ps/Ds
Not a Kroger evasion because the P brought in the 3rd Party D, not the D

Question 21

what is kroger evasion?

Answer 21

Ask: is what’s happening here the type of maneuver one might use to evade the jurisdictional limits of the court? If yes, then Kroger evasion. If no, then prob not.
Indicia of LACK of evasion:
If the claim under scrutiny is not a substantive claim (like an indemnity claim)
If the P filing the claim under scrutiny initially filed in state court and the D removed it.
Clearly, they aren’t evading jurisdictional requirements b/c they didn’t even want to be in federal court to begin with.
Any other factor that makes it implausible that future parties would use those circumstances to evade diversity requirements.

Question 22

What is Rule 24

Answer 22

Rule 24 governs intervention

Involves a party who is not part of the original litigation unit but wants to join the lawsuit

Can intervene either as PL or D

Two types: 1. As of right and 2. Permissive

(a)(1) & (2) – As of Right Intervention (Presumption is in favor of intervention)
(1) Given the right to intervene by federal statute
(2) (MUCH more typical) Has an interest in the property or transaction that is of issue in the case

Four Elements to Satisfy: 
         	(1) Must file a timely motion (timeliness)
                	Contextual, NO set time
               	Key Factor = When the proposed intervenor knew or should have known its interest wasn’t being adequately represented
                       	Consider factors in when intervening party knew or should have known + fairness to existing parties 

(2) Have a tangible interest (Interest)
             	Low bar – must show you have some sort of interest

(3) Must show that your interest would be impaired by judgment in that case (Impairment) AND
       	ASK: will that interest be impaired as a practical matter?
       	Does NOT mean legally bound
               	Examples
                       	Judicial precedent will impair your future ability to defend a right
                        	May make it harder for you to enforce your property rights.
                      	Something legally significant must be practically impaired

(4) You’re not adequately represented in the case (Adequate Representation)
          	You’re going to bring something unique to the case and your interest is not represented by the current parties

(b) – Permissive Intervention
Timely motion
May permit if party has a common question of law or fact
Very LOW standard, does NOT even have to be the same transaction

(b)(3) Permissive intervention is a matter left to the discretion of the court
Must consider “whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties”
Court may also consider other relevant factors:
The nature and extent of the intervenor’s interests
Whether the intervenor’s interests are adequately represented by the parties
Whether the party seeking intervention will significantly contribute to the full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal question presented

(c) – Filing the Motion
Must file motion to intervene, must serve the parties, state grounds for intervention and has to be accompanied by the pleading
Pleading = Vital b/c it tells the court whether you want to intervene as a PL or D
Court may tell you you’re wrong and switch you, but typically you know what side you want to be on

Question 23

What case is an example of Rule 24

Answer 23

Mattel, Inc

Court rules that MGA is not “indispensable” > thus, intervention is allowed and under Court’s SMJ

The Court doesn’t go into an “indispensability” analysis; just assumes MGA not indispensable and goes from there

Only have to comply with § 1332 jurisdictional requirements if parties are in federal court AND intervening party is “indispensable” to the action if (borrowed from Rule 19) —
(1) complete diversity would have been destroyed had that party been joined as an original party to the suit; AND
(2) in fairness and justice, the case cannot proceed in that party’s absence (they ought to be joined, but doesn’t satisfy jurisdictional requirements)

Here, case can proceed without MGA — P can get all damages, D doesn’t need them either

It would be nice to have them (MGA has economic interest), but not indispensable

Question 24

Discuss Interpleader

Answer 24

Interpleader is governed by Rule 22 and Statutory Interpleader

Interpleader: A joinder device that comes into play when two or more persons each claim that they are entitled to the same property or “stake.”

Stake: The property—any property interest (real estate/stocks/bonds/annuities/etc.)

Stakeholder: The party (person or entity) who has possession or control of the property, but usually, no ownership interest in it.
EX: An annuity payout that is being held by the bank.
They don’t own it, but they are holding on to it until the proper owner can be identified and paid.

The stakeholder can be a claimant

Claimant: The parties fighting over entitlement to the stake
Need 2 or more adverse claimants

Claimant’s claims added together must exceed 10% or stakeholder can say “I don’t owe stake to anyone, I’m entitled to it”

Procedure
 Step 1: The stakeholder files a lawsuit, shows they are entitled to an interpleader action, and deposits the property in the court.
 Step 2: The claimants litigate who owns it

Approach
Step 1: Try applying statutory interpleader (1335) b/c it has more lenient standards
Step 2: If statutory interpleader fails, trying applying rule Interpleader (rule 22)
If statutory interpleader is satisfied, briefly go through rule interpleader on exam for thoroughness

Question 25

Go through statutory interpleader

Answer 25

SMJ = 1335

Court has SMJ over certain interpleader actions that have AIC = $500 or more

Requires “minimal diversity” — only 2 of the claimants have to be diverse from each other (that’s all we care about)

You can use 1335 if you are a stakeholder, there is at least $500 in controversy, and there is minimal diversity amongst the claimants

Stake has to be deposited to the Court

Venue = 1397
Venue is proper in any judicial district in which one or more of the claimants resides

Personal Jurisdiction = 2361
“Nationwide service of process”
Can exercise personal jurisdiction over claimants with minimal contacts within the United States (5th Amendment due process)
District Court can exercise PJ over any claimant who can be served within the United States

Deposit stake = 1335
Stakeholder required to deposit the stake w/ the court

Enjoin other proceedings = 2361
Can stop all other courts/proceedings, so that the court can adjudicate the stake

Question 26

go through rule interpleader

Answer 26

SMJ = 1332 (diversity + AIC)
Stakeholder needs to be completely diverse from all claimants + AIC greater than $75k

Venue = 1391
Traditional venue analysis
§ 1391(b) Civil action can be brought in
(1) a judicial district in which any D resides, if all Ds are residents of the State in which the district is located
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred

PJ = Normal rules (long arm statute, sliding scale approach)
Traditional minimum contacts test analysis

Deposit stake = optional

Enjoin other proceedings = court has power to enjoin all other suits

Question 27

what case is an example of interpleader

Answer 27

Geler

1st case = Gelers v. Bank (bank should’ve filed counterclaim here under 13h and joined the estate)

2nd Case = Susana estate v. Bank

3rd Case = Bank v. Susana and Gelers
Issue: is interpleader proper here?

2 kinds of Interpleader in Federal courts:

Statutory Interpleader
§ 1335(a) — SMJ
Court has SMJ over certain interpleader actions that have $500 or more in controversy
Requires “minimal diversity” — only 2 of the claimants have to be diverse from each other (that’s all we care about)
You can use 1335 if you are a stakeholder, there is at least $500 in controversy, and there is minimal diversity amongst the claimants
Stake has to be deposited to the Court
§ 1397 — Venue
If interpleader entered under § 1335, can file interpleader action in any judicial district in which one or more of the claimants resides
You also can use § 1391 to satisfy venue — pick whichever works for you
§ 1391(b) Civil action can be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any D resides, if all Ds are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred
§ 2361 — Personal Jurisdiction
If interpleader entered under § 1335,
Can exercise personal jurisdiction over claimants with minimal contacts within the United States (5th Amendment due process)
District Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over any claimant who can be served within the United States
Can stop all other courts/proceedings, so that the court can adjudicate the stake

Rule Interpleader
Need an IBJ to use this rule
Rule 22 — provides joinder of parties rule that allows interpleader
Requires complete diversity under § 1332 and amount in controversy has to exceed $75,000
Stakeholder v. Claimants all have to be completely diverse
Don’t need to deposit the stake with the court, but it is general practice to do so
Then need to satisfy
Venue — § 1391
Personal Jurisdiction — Rule 4(k)(1)(A)

Approach:
— Do you have stake, stakeholder, and adverse claimants?
— Start trying with statutory interpleader: § 1335
— If it doesn’t work, then use Rule interpleader: Rule 22

Here, cannot use statutory interpleader because there is no minimal diversity (both Geler and Susana are from state of ‘alien’)

What about rule interpleader?
IBJ?
Yes, complete diversity between the bank and Geler and Susana (aliens)
Rule 22
§ 1391 Venue?
Substantial events giving rise to claim happened in NY (setting up the stake/Totten trust)
Rule 4(k)(1)(A) Personal Jurisdiction?
Minimal contacts with NY satisfied

Question 28

What is the core concept behind rule 19

Answer 28

Rule 19 governs compulsory joinder

Rule 19 Allows you to pull someone into the case who is NOT currently in it

Raised by a 12(b)(7) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of a Required Party > D files in response, asserting that PL needs to join another party to proceed

Rule 19 is then triggered in response to the 12(b)(7) motion

Filing party is essentially saying that the case cannot proceed until another required party is joined

Can be raised sua ponte by the court

The court may initiate Rule 19 by saying the case cannot continue until a required party is joined

Two Major Parts to Understand
A – Is there an absent party who ‘ought to be in the case’? AND Can the absent party be joined?
B – Can we proceed without the absent party?

Question 29

state the rule for Rule 19

Answer 29

A – Is there an absent party who ‘ought to be in the case’
1 – Must/ought the absent party be joined?
A – Complete Relief (Harm to PL)
An absent party must be joined if in the person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties
EX: Typically occurring the context of injunctions – PL wants D landlord to install new piping but cannot do so without permission from absent gov’t agency
B – Harm to Absent Party/Double or Inconsistent Obligations for existing party
(i) Would absent party be harmed if the court proceeds without them?
Will the absent party’s ability to protect its interests be curtailed or undermined in any substantial way?
(ii) Might a current party in the case be harmed if the court proceeds without them? – Such that the existing party would suffer a double/inconsistent obligation
Double Liability
E.g.: The bank must pay the same annuity funds to both parties even though there was only one annuity meant for one party
Inconsistent Obligation
One court tells D to do X, and another one may tell D to do
Following one court’s order would lead the D to be in violation of another court’s order

2 – Can the absent party be joined?
If the answer to A is YES, then we ask if it’s feasible to bring in an absent party
Is the absent party subject to Personal Jurisdiction (minimum contacts test)?
        	If NO – joinder is NOT possible
Will bringing in the party violate complete diversity (1332) – SMJ?
       	If YES – Joinder is NOT feasible** > Then and only then you will assess 19(b)
NOTE: If the answer is YES to both 1 and 2, join the party and analysis is DONE

B – When joinder is not feasible, can we proceed without the absent party?
NOTE: You ONLY get here when there is a party who ought to be joined (“Yes” to 1A but ‘NO’ to 1B)
Indispensable: The Party is required, but the joinder is not feasible > Then the case cannot proceed without them and must be dismissed
But don’t only say “indispensable here b/c that’s an abstraction. Say “they ought to be brought in, and we cannot proceed without them.”
General presumption = the case should proceed if possible
Factors to Consider in deciding if case can proceed:
19(b)(1): Just repeats analysis from A – what is the harm that would be suffered?
19(b)(2)(A-C): Whether there is something/anything the judge/parties can do to avoid or ameliorate the harm we’ve identified (most important factor)
EX: protective provisions in the judgement, shaping relief, parties settling
19(b)(3): Are there already state proceedings regarding the issue (not usually a deciding factor)
19(b)(4): Whether the PL would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

Question 30

what case is an example of Rule 19(a)

Answer 30

Maldonado v. National Western

Rule 19 compulsory joinder is triggered when:

1) Complete relief cannot be satisfied among existing parties; or
“Complete relief” clause will be met when any relief between the existing parties would be hollow or meaningless without the absentee’s presence in the suit
Here, Francisco is not needed to determine whether both annuities are void.

2) Harm to absent parties?
D may have to pay the Maldonado-Viñas, but that doesn’t harm Francisco (other than he may fear future litigation)

3) Harm to existing parties? Risk of double or inconsistent obligations?
Inconsistent Obligation
When you have two obligations but it is physically impossible to do both (ie. One court orders you to do something and another court orders the opposite) National Western not subject to inconsistent obligations because paying twice is not an inconsistent obligation because you can do it; might be unfair, but physically possible
First thing Francisco would argue in another suit is that the annuities are not void, so there remains a “substantial risk” that if the brother had to litigate in another court, that other court would decide otherwise, so as to subject D to double obligations
Because D might have to “pay out double on the annuities,” and there remains a substantial risk that this would occur if the brother was not joined, he was a person required to be joined (if feasible) under Rule 19(a)
Not feasible in this case because Francisco doesn’t have minimal contacts with Puerto Rico to exercise jurisdiction. Remanded to lower court to see whether to use discretion to keep original case or dismiss.

Question 31

what is a case on rule 19(b)

Answer 31

Provident Tradesmen v. Patterson

19(b) -
(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;
- It won’t at all; Lumbermen’s never brought up harm to them
(2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:
(A) protective provisions in the judgment;
(B) shaping the relief; or
(C) other measures;
- Wait until the payout
- Plaintiffs could all agree ??
- Could invite Dutcher to intervene
- Interpleader
§ Stake holder = Lumbermen’s
§ Stake = policy
§ Adverse claimant = many
(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and
- This is a plus factor, never a driving factor
whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.