Pg 20 Flashcards
What are considered to be necessary and indispensable parties?
People that are required to be joined if it is possible. The required party is someone that is subject to SOP and whose joinder will not deprive the court of SMJ
On an essay when do you discuss necessary and indispensable parties?
You need to spot when the absence of a required party can be a defense. This would be raised by the defendant, and not the plaintiff. Then talk about the two different tests for whether there is a necessary party and whether they are indispensable to further litigation
What are the two different things to consider with regard to necessary and indispensable parties?
– necessary parties when joinder is feasible
– joinder of a party is not feasible
What happens with regard to a necessary party when joinder is feasible?
A required party must be joined if in his absence the court cannot give complete relief to existing parties or disposing of the action without him may impair or impede his ability to protect his interest, or leave an existing party subject to serious risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations
If a person has not been joined in a suit, and then the court orders joinder, and he refuses, what can happen?
He can be made a defendant or an involuntary plaintiff
If someone contracts to buy a business from A and B, but he later sues A to rescind, what must also happen?
He must also sue B because the suit would only rescind with regard to one seller
What does it mean for someone to be considered a necessary party and how is that different from a indispensable party?
A necessary party means it is desirable for that person to be part of the action but it’s not so essential that the action cannot continue without them. Whereas an indispensable party absolutely must be involved or else the case is dismissed
What are the elements that are involved for necessary parties when joinder is feasible?
- without adding the party, the court couldn’t give complete relief among existing parties
– the party has an interest in the subject matter of the action and the ability to protect it will be impaired if he has not joined
– adjudicating the case without the party might leave the existing party exposed to multiple or inconsistent obligations
What is involved in joinder of a party when it’s not feasible?
If a party is required to be joined but he can’t be, the court can determine if in equity in good conscience the action should proceed among the existing parties or be dismissed
What are factors that a court will consider if a party that is required to be joined cannot be joined?
– the availability of another forum for the plaintiff’s complaints
– the court’s ability to give relief that doesn’t harm the absent party and protects the parties in the case
– how much the judgement in the party’s absence will prejudice him or existing parties
– how much the prejudice can be lessened or avoided by protective provisions in the judgment
– shaping the relief
– if the judgement in his absence would be adequate and the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if it’s dismissed for non-joinder
If a party should be joined, but cannot be, what are the three choices?
- to go forward without the party if in equity in good conscience the action can proceed
– dismiss
– go forward and craft a judgement to give relief to parties without joining everyone
If a joined party objects to venue and joinder makes it improper, what has to happen?
The court must dismiss him
What must the party that is asserting the claim do with regards to names of people?
He must state all names if he knows them of anyone that is required to be joined if feasible, and the reason for not joining them
If the court decides to proceed without an absent party, what should be considered?
– the plaintiff’s interest in the forum
– the defendant’s interest in avoiding duplicate litigation
– the absent party’s desire to join
– the court and the public’s interest in consistent and complete resolution of cases
Just because the tortfeasor might be sued by other parties that are injured in the accident, does that mandate joinder of other potential plaintiffs?
No, it’s possible to bring their own separate actions
