Joinder Terms Flashcards
Joinder generally
Any party in lodge any claim they have against another party. Need SMJ!!
- want expeditious claims together— for class-actions and mass torts
- Can resolve parties in one case
- One things tries on the merits vs. by procedural obstacle
- Don’t want parties to sandbag (lie behind the log)
- Want claims to come out; we want repose (statute that cuts off legal rights if not brought by certain deadline)
- Federal rule 18 removes all obstacles to joiner of claims and allows joiner on both legal and equitable matters (don’t need a common nucleus of fact). Only restrictions are imposed by judicial requirements.
Counterclaims
filed against OPPOSING party
(1) a cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction set for in the complaint as the foundation of Ps claim or connected with the subject of the action and;
- ”Logical relationship” can be one event or many; one contract or many
- ”Links in the chain” of underlying transaction that give rise to the suit
- functional, not formal process (how connected the counterclaim is)
(2) in an action arising on contract, any other cause of action arising on contract, and existing at the commencement of the action
Rule 18: party is starting a claim may join as many claims as they have without limitation by:
Permissive joinder
- type of suit
- Type of claim
- Whether it’s same transaction or occurrence
- court can order separate trials (Rule 42)
- court must have subject matter jurisdiction (diversity or FQ; if neither then supplemental)
- gives repose
Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim
(a) Compulsory Counterclaim
(1) General. A pleading state as a counterclaim any claim that at the time of its service, the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim:
(A) same transaction or occurrence as plaintiff claim
- multi factor analysis (Heyward Robinson)
- logical relationship between claim and counterclaim (probably under same nucleus of fact)
- issues of fact/law largely the same
- res judicata compels the counterclaimant to assert his claim in the same suit for it would be barred it asserted separately, subsequently
- substantially same evidence?
- if compulsory, supplemental jurisdiction
- if you don’t put in complaint, you waive to raise later only compulsory claim in the world
(B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction
(2) Exceptions The pleaded need not state the claim if:
- D has forum Choice were multiple suits present chance to raise counterclaim (Picard, union Paving) (13a2A)
- if requires joining a third-party over whom court lack jurisdiction, not compulsory 13A1B
Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim
(b) Permissive Counterclaim
A Pleading my state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory
- supplemental jurisdiction for permissive counterclaims if “**same case or controversy*” (CNOF, s1367)
- broader than transaction or occurrence
Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim
(g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty
Rule 14 impleading
- asserted against a co-party (same side) can be liable for all our part of claim
- Arises out of same transaction or occurrence (LASA factors) of original action or counterclaim (this will generally give it supplemental jurisdiction but NOT AUTOMATIC; still need to do explanation—if satisfied, then common nucleus of operative fact satisfied 99% of time)
- LASA factors
- NEVER compulsory
- allowed in as long as permissible under party joinder rules and “in good judicial economy” (Rule 13(h))
Rule 20: permissive joinder of parties
- “transaction or occurrence” = functional
- “common question of law or fact” = easy
- Right or liabilities “joint, several, in the alternative” = someone narrower than for claimed joiner usually satisfied at the other two factors are (but still must discuss)
-Joint = they are relationship between D’s that makes each of them livable in the event the other is liable (co-principals)
-several= each might be liable in different amounts- rationale: don’t want to separate trials with the same parties we want repose (everyone’s right connected to dispute to be resolved) by joining lawsuit
Party joinder evolution
Common law system distinguished between necessary and indispensable parties (Bank of California)
Rule 19
- no more distinguishing necessary (19a1b) & indispensable parties (19a1a) because we’re doing the same multifactor analysis steps
- court can continue unless “equity and good conscience” suggest otherwise (19b)
- 19(b) factors (Provident Tradesmen’s)
Necessary (19a1b) vs. indispensable (19a1a) multi-factor balancing test
(A) in person’s absence, court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties:
Step 1: do I have a rule 19 party? (persons required to be joined a feasible)
Step 2:is it feasible to join them? 19a2 (Joinder by Court Order) will be joined anyway. If not joining is not feasible move to step 3
Step 3: Do I need to dismiss the lawsuit? What makes joinder not feasible?
- waste judicial resources
- Could prejudice the defendant
- whether proceeding without P would affect them
- affect adequacy of P’s remedy: how much work P has already put in, how many litigation victories they’ve put in to move case towards judgment
- longer the case goes on, the more specific the problem of finding an adequate remedy is
(B) Disposing action in person’s absence may
1.
2.
3. All evidence is far away from forum —> defeats feasibility; immunity defense
Rule 14 Impleader
Current party can to bring in third-party who thinks is liable to THAT D or P’s claim as long as it’s permitted under rules 19 or 20 (party joinder)
