Multiple Parties Flashcards
What is permissive joinder of a PARTY and what Rule governs it?
Rule 20 sets forth the circumstances in which a plaintiff may join other plaintiffs in an action or in which defendants may be joined in the same action.
What are the requirements for parties to join an action as plaintiffs?
Pursuant to Rule 20(a)(1), persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
i) They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
ii) Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
What are the requirements for parties to be joined in an action as defendants?
Pursuant to Rule 20(a)(2), persons may be joined in one action as defendants if: i) Any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and ii) A question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. #Q: Does this apply for compulsory as well as permissive?
True or false: The same relief must be demanded among joined plaintiffs or against joined defendants.
False. Rule 20(a)(3).
What can the court do to prevent unfairness, hardship, delay or undue expense to parties joined in an action?
i) To avoid unfairness or hardship to any party, the court may order separate trials on any claims joined
ii) to prevent delay or undue expense to any party, the court may make any other order
Rule 20(b).
True or false: A plaintiff or defendant sought to be joined must also meet the requirements of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
True.
In pure diversity cases, for supplemental jurisdiction to apply to defendants sought to be joined under the permissive joinder rule, must there be complete diversity, and must the claims against the new D meet the AIC requirement?*
Yes and yes.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to defendants sought to be joined under the permissive joinder rule in a case based exclusively on diversity jurisdiction in which exercising jurisdiction would destroy diversity. Thus, if the claims are made solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, then there must be complete diversity between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and each claim must exceed the jurisdictional amount in controversy of $75,000.
While driving his car, Plaintiff, a citizen of Arizona, is hit by a truck operated by Defendant 1, a citizen of New Mexico. Plaintiff is thrown from his car and is further injured by a car driven by Defendant 2, a citizen of Nevada. Plaintiff brings a negligence suit for $100,000 against Defendant 1 in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff then joins Defendant 2 under Rule 20, suing for $25,000. Is there supplemental jx against D2? Diversity jx against D2?
Q: How does this destroy complete diversity?
Under § 1367(b), there is no supplemental jurisdiction against Defendant 2 and no diversity jurisdiction against Defendant 2 because the statutory jurisdictional amount is not met.
If multiple Ps join together under the permissive joinder rule, for supplemental jx to exist, must there be complete diversity? Must the new Ps’ claims independently meet the AIC requirement?*
Yes and no. Supplemental jurisdiction can exist for a claim that does not meet the statutory jurisdictional amount, provided the parties still meet the requirement of complete diversity. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005).
Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2, who are citizens of California, join together under Rule 20 as plaintiffs against Defendant, a citizen of Oregon, in a diversity suit for negligence. The claims arise out of the same occurrence or transaction. Plaintiff 1 claims $200,000 and Plaintiff 2 claims $25,000. Is there supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff 2’s claim? What if Plaintiff 2 was a citizen of Oregon?
Yes. There is supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff 2’s claim even though the claim does not meet the statutory jurisdictional amount. If Plaintiff 2 was a citizen of Oregon, however, there would not be complete diversity, and Plaintiff 2 would have to be dropped from the federal case.
True or false: If a defendant is joined pursuant to Rule 20, then the court must have in personam jurisdiction over the defendant in order for joinder to be proper.
True.
Is joinder under Rule 20 subject to venue requirements?
Yes, any that are applicable.
What is compulsory joinder of PARTIES and which Rule governs it?
Rule 19 specifies circumstances in which additional parties must be joined.
For compulsory joinder of a party to occur, must the requirements of jurisdiction (both subject matter and personal) and venue be met?
Yes.
What happens if compulsory joinder of a party cannot occur because of jurisdictional or venue issues?
Under certain circumstances, Rule 19(b) may require the action to be dismissed from federal court.
Under what circumstances is a person a necessary party who must be joined under Rule 19?
Preliminaries:
• The person is subject to service of process
• Joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction or destroy venue
i) Complete relief cannot be provided to existing parties in the absence of that person; or
ii) Disposition in the absence of that person may impair the person’s ability to protect his interest; or
iii) The absence of that person would leave existing parties subject to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.
A necessary party is therefore a person whose participation in the lawsuit is necessary for a just adjudication.
True or false: Tortfeasors facing joint and several liability are not parties who must be joined under Rule 19.
False.
Must a plaintiff or defendant to be joined under Rule 19 meet the requirements of federal subject matter jurisdiction?
Yes. Thus, if the exclusive basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction, and a party sought to be joined would destroy diversity, joinder is not permitted.
For supplemental jurisdiction to apply to the claims of a party sought to be joined under Rule 19 in a case based exclusively on diversity jurisdiction, must the exercise of jurisdiction be consistent with the diversity requirements?
Yes.
Must there be personal jurisdiction over a party in order for that party to be joined under Rule 19?
Yes.
Where may a necessary party be served?
A required party may be served within 100 miles from where the summons was issued, even if the service is outside of the state and beyond its long-arm statute jurisdiction. Rule 4(k)(1)(B).
What happens if a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper?
The court must dismiss that party.
Under Rule 19(b), if a necessary party cannot be joined because of jurisdictional or venue concerns, what must the court decide? What factors may it consider?
The court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties (more typical) or be dismissed (rare). Among the factors for the court to consider are:
i) Prejudice: The extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties (including the extent to which any prejudice could be reduced or avoided by protective provisions in the judgment, shaping the relief, or other measures);
ii) Adequacy: Whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and
iii) Remedy: Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.
What is an indispensable party?
When the court dismisses an action because of the inability to join a necessary party, the party is said to be “indispensable.”
What is intervention and what rule governs it?
Rule 24 governs the circumstances under which a nonparty may join in a lawsuit. In some circumstances, the nonparty may intervene as of right. In other circumstances, the nonparty must have the permission of the court.
Under what circumstances does a nonparty have the right to intervene?
Rule 24(a)(1): when a federal statute confers the right
Rule 24(a)(2):
i) The nonparty has an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject matter of the action;
ii) The disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair the nonparty’s interest; AND
iii) The nonparty’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.
Note: The criteria for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) are similar to the criteria for compulsory joinder under Rule 19(a).
How does a nonparty intervene?
Whether intervening as of right or by permissive intervention, a motion to intervene must be timely.
When a party seeks to intervene as of right, who has the burden of proof?
The person seeking to intervene.
Under what circumstances may a court allow intervention, and what factors must it consider?
Either:
i) The movant has a conditional right to intervene under a federal statute; or
ii) The movant’s claim or defense and the original action share a common question of law or fact.
In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
Who decides whether a nonparty timely moved to intervene, and what factors are considered?
The decision of whether the nonparty timely moved to intervene is in the discretion of the trial court, considering factors such as:
i) The length of time the movant knew or reasonably should have known that its interest was threatened before moving to intervene;
ii) The prejudice to existing parties if intervention is permitted; and
iii) The prejudice to the movant if intervention is denied.
