Pretrial Proc's - Joinder of Parties Flashcards
For a defendant to bring a nonparty into an action
the defendant must claim that the nonparty “is or may be liable to [the defendant] for all or part of the claim against it” by the P
D bringing nonparty = IMPLEADER = one type of joinder = nonparty may be liable to D for all/part of claim made by P
Note: claim must also be related to or arise out of same transaction.
What is procedure if joinder attempted by D on nonparty improperly?
Motion to dismiss for improper joinder
or motion to stike 3p claim for improper impleader
A plaintiff MUST join an absent party or face dismissal of his lawsuit if: (Rule 19 Required Joinder)
The court has personal jurisdiction over the absentee;
The absentee’s presence would not destroy subject matter jurisdiction or venue;
AND
Either:
Complete relief cannot be accorded among the other parties to the action without the absentee party;
OR
The absentee has such an interest in the action that a decision in his absence will impede his ability to protect the interest or leave any of the other parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations.
When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must
determine whether, IN EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:
(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;
(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;
(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and
(4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.
Parties MAY join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants when
(1) Some claim is made by each plaintiff and against each defendant that arises out of the same transactions or occurrences;
AND
(2) There is a question of fact or law common to all parties.
Interpleader
allows a plaintiff or defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute.
Rule Interpleader By a Plaintiff.
Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead.
Joinder for interpleader is proper even though:
The claims of the several claimants, or the titles on which their claims depend, lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical (such as the insurance company paying out to multiple claimants who were each in different accidents with insured driver);
OR
The plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.
Note: not necessary to post a security/bond with court. and the minimum amount in controversy is like diversity: $75k
Rule Interpleader By a Defendant.
A defendant exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a cross-claim or counterclaim.
statutory interpleader action.
The statute applies when
[t]wo or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship (ie, just need minimal diversity (any P from different state than any D)) .. , are claiming or may claim to be entitled to . .. money or property’’ that the stakeholder has in its “custody or possession . . . of the value of $500 or more.”
under statutory interpleader, the stakeholder must deposit the money or property with the court or, alternatively, post a bond in an amount that the court sets
What is critical is the fact t hat the claims to be resolved “are adverse to and independent of one another.” ld. A determination of adversity frequently isfound when the stakeholder is confronted by competing demands for payment by beneficiaries under insurance policies.
See eg, Q15 in MBE Questions folder
Intervention
permits a nonparty to intervene in an action.
Intervention may be granted to a party as of right OR permissively
Intervention as of right (FRCP Rule 24)
As of Right. Intervention is available as of right when the applicant claims an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject matter of the action, AND the disposition of the action without him (ie, existing parties do not adequately rep his interest) may impair his ability to protect that interest.
Permissive Intervention (also in Rule 24)
Permissive. Intervention is permissive when the applicant’s claim or defense
and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.
Permissive intervention must be supported by its own jurisdictional grounds and is discretionary with the court.
Court “must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”
A class action is
a type of suit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group (called “named parties”).
A class action is proper if:
The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
There are questions of law or fact common to the class;
Named parties’ interests are typical of the class;
AND
Named parties will adequately represent the interests of the absent members of the class
Once the four class axn requirements are met, the class will be certified IF:
Separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent results or impair the interests of unnamed parties;
The defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds applicable to the class and injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate for the class as a whole;
OR
Common questions of law or fact predominate over individual issues and a class action is superior to alternate methods of adjudication. (THIS IS THE MOST LIKELY TESTED ASPECT: you got tricked up on MBE Q where the class was “someone hired or not promoted by large company due to bias against gender” as the class…Since each class member’s claim is valid only if her particular manager behaved in an intentionally-discriminatory way, there is no single “common question of law or fact” that can be resolved on a class-wide basis so as to resolve the overall suit. Therefore, the action cannot go forward as a class action.)
Note: Mass employment-discrimination suits against large companies are especially likely to flunk this requirement.