Joinder (Rule 18)

Question 1

What FRCP governs joinders?

Answer 1

Rule 18

Question 2

What are the first two things you should consider when thinking about joinders?

Answer 2

(1) Do the FRCP permit joinder in these circumstances?
(2) If joinder were to occur, would the court have SMJ?

Question 3

Are joinders procedural? Do they confer jurisdiction?

Answer 3

Joinders are only procedural. They DO NOT answer jurisdictional questions.

Question 4

Do claims being joined under Rule 18 have to be related in any way?

Answer 4

No, a plaintiff can make/bring any claim against a defendant.

Question 5

Does a plaintiff have to join every claim under Rule 18?

Answer 5

No, joinders under Rule 18 are permissive.

Question 6

If one of the joined claims does not have independent SMJ (FQ or Diversity), what must you then look at?

Answer 6

You must analyze whether supplemental jurisdiction can extend to the tagalong claim.

Question 7

What are other ways in which a party and/or claims can be joined?

Answer 7

(1) Counterclaims
(2) Crossclaims
(3) Impleader
(4) Joinder of Parties by Defendants
(5) Joinder of Parties
(6) Compulsory Joinders

Question 8

What FRCP governs counterclaims?

Answer 8

Rule 13

Question 9

What are counterclaims?

Answer 9

Claims a defendant makes against the plaintiff.

Question 10

What are the two types of counterclaims? What FRCP governs each of them?

Answer 10

Compulsory (FRCP 13a)

Permissive (FRCP 13b)

Question 11

What are compulsory claims?

Answer 11

A claim that must be brought in initial trial (otherwise, it will be waived/gone). They rise from the same transaction or occurrence (t/o) as the original claim.

Question 12

What test do we use to figure out if a claim arises from the same t/o?

Answer 12

Logical Relationship Test

Question 13

What are the elements of the Logical Relationship Test?

Answer 13

To know whether the totality of the claims substantially overlap (logical connection of essential facts), we must consider:
(1) Nature of claims
(2) Legal basis for recovery
(3) Law involved
(4) Respective factual backgrounds

Question 14

What are permissive claims?

Answer 14

A claim that is not compulsory, it does not rise from the same t/o (which means, open season on claims that can be brought).

Question 15

Can you extend supplemental jurisdiction to permissive counterclaims?

Answer 15

No. With no same transaction or occurrence (t/o), the case does not arise from the same case/controversy (so no extension of supplemental jurisdiction).

So, to survive in federal court, the permissive counterclaim must have independent jurisdiction.

Question 16

What FRCP governs crossclaims?

Answer 16

Rule 13(g)

Question 17

What are crossclaims?

Answer 17

Claims made against co-parties (those on the same side of the “v.”)

Question 18

Are crossclaims permissive?

Answer 18

Yes, they do not arise from the same t/o (therefore, it is open season on the claims that can be brought).

Question 19

What if a co-party brings a crossclaim against you? Are you still a co-party?

Answer 19

Unless it is an indemnity/contribution (i/c) claim, when a co-party brings a substantive claim against another co-party, the latter co-party becomes an opposing party (therefore, compulsory counterclaim rule kicks in).

Question 20

What FRCP governs joinders of parties by defendants?

Answer 20

Rule 13(h)

Question 21

What does Rule 13(h) permit?

Answer 21

It permits a defendant who has filed a counterclaim or a crossclaim against an existing party to join a new party to that claim.

Question 22

For Rule 13(h), what rule(s) must the defendant satisfy to join a new party?

Answer 22

The defendant CAN ONLY join a new party if Rule 19 or 20 are satisfied.

Question 23

If the defendant’s claim against a new party has no SMJ, what analysis must you conduct?

Answer 23

Supplemental Jurisdiction Analysis

Question 24

To see if supp. jur. extends to a claim made under Rule 13(h), what sections and/or subsections in the FRCP must you look at?

Answer 24

Check § 1367(a): Is it the same case or controversy (arises from the same t/o)?

Check § 1367(b): Was the defendant made a party by the plaintiff under the rules listed?

Question 25

What FRCP governs impleaders?

Answer 25

Rule 14

Question 26

What do impleaders allow defendants to do?

Answer 26

Defendants may file a third-party complaint against a non-party who is or maybe liable for all or part of a claim (i/c) made against the defendant.

Question 27

For impleaders, what does the person adding the non-party become?

Answer 27

The third-party plaintiff.

Question 28

For impleaders, what does the new party getting sued become?

Answer 28

The third-party defendant.

Question 29

If there is no original jurisdictional basis for either party’s claim against a new party, what analysis must you conduct?

Answer 29

Supplemental Jurisdiction Analysis

Question 30

What FRCP governs Joinders of Parties

Answer 30

Rule 20

Question 31

Under Rule 20, persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if…

Answer 31

(1) They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same t/o, or series of t/o; AND

(2) Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

Question 32

Under Rule 20, persons may join in one action as defendants if…

Answer 32

(1) Any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same t/o, or series of t/o; AND

(2) Any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action

Question 33

When some plaintiffs meet the amount in controversy requirement, but others do not, can you supp. jur. all of them, even when some do not meet the amount in controversy? What analysis do you conduct?

Answer 33

Yes. Supplemental Jurisdiction Analysis

Question 34

Which FRCP involves necessary parties that should be added to a case?

Answer 34

Rule 19 (Compulsory Joinder)

Question 35

What steps must you go through for compulsory joinder?

Answer 35

Step 1: Is the absent party in fact a required party?

Step 2: If the absent party is required, and the court can join him (it is feasible), he must be joined.

Step 3: 19(b) Analysis

Step 4: If the absent party is required, cannot be joined, AND “the show goes on” facts point toward dismissal, the absent party is an indispensable party (which means the case will get dismissed)

Question 36

How do we figure out if the absent party is in fact required? (Hint: What prongs do you look at)

Answer 36

RELIEF PRONG (Rare) and the PREJUDICE EXISTING/ABSENT PARTY PRONG (More Common/Expect on the Exam)

Question 37

What is the nickname for a 19(b) analysis?

Answer 37

“The Show Can Go On”

Question 38

What are the steps in a 19(b) analysis (“the show can go on”)?

Answer 38

(1) How much prejudice will the existing and/or absent parties suffer?
(2) Is there some way the court can constrain the prejudice?
(3) If we go on without the required party, will the court’s judgment be adequate?
(4) What happens to the plaintiff if the case is dismissed? Does he have some adequate remedy, to resolve most of the case?

Question 39

For compulsory joinders, if the plaintiff has no adequate remedy/avenue for relief, what should the court do?

Answer 39

If he does not, the case should continue/not be dismissed.

Question 40

For impleaders, can the third-party plaintiff present a claim of the third-party defendant’s liability to the plaintiff?

Answer 40

No. It must set forth a claim of secondary liability such that, if the third-party plaintiff is found liable, the third-party defendant will be liable to him under a theory of indemnification, contribution, or some other theory of derivative liability recognized by the relevant substantive law.