Pretrial Proc's - Joinder of Parties

Question 1

For a defendant to bring a nonparty into an action

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

What is procedure if joinder attempted by D on nonparty improperly?

Answer 2

Motion to dismiss for improper joinder
or motion to stike 3p claim for improper impleader

Question 3

A plaintiff MUST join an absent party or face dismissal of his lawsuit if: (Rule 19 Required Joinder)

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Parties MAY join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants when

Answer 5

(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.

Question 6

Interpleader

Answer 6

allows a plaintiff or defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute.

Question 7

Rule Interpleader By a Plaintiff.

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Rule Interpleader By a Defendant.

Answer 8

A defendant exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a cross-claim or counterclaim.

Question 9

statutory interpleader action.

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Intervention

Answer 10

permits a nonparty to intervene in an action.

Intervention may be granted to a party as of right OR permissively

Question 11

Intervention as of right (FRCP Rule 24)

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

Permissive Intervention (also in Rule 24)

Answer 12

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.”

Question 13

A class action is

Answer 13

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”).

Question 14

A class action is proper if:

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Once the four class axn requirements are met, the class will be certified IF:

Answer 15

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.

Question 17

“Joinder” refers to

Answer 17

both joinder of PARTIES and CLAIMS.

Question 18

a plaintiff may join a tort and a contract claim in one lawsuit and, indeed, may join

Answer 18

“as many claims as it has against an opposing party.”

Keep in mind that although the joinder rule is permissive, it does not confer jurisdiction on t he court.

Question 19

If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court must

Answer 19

dismiss that party.

Question 20

SUA SPONTE MEANS

Answer 20

on one’s own behalf.

in context, means court may sua sponte do something without motion being raised by someone. can do it on their own.

Question 21

Generally, the federal rules provide that “[m]isjoinder is not a ground for

Answer 21

dismissing an action”; the court, sua sponte or on motion, may “add or drop a party” to protect its jurisdiction. FRCP 21. Thus, in a case involving permissive joinder , the district court has discretion to drop a nondiverseparty.SeeSamsv.BeechAircraftCorp.,625F.2d273,277(9thCir. 1980).

However, when the question of compulsory joinder under FRCP 19 is involved, the court must consider whether “in equity and good conscience” the case can go forward subject to the factors set out in FRCP 19(b).

Question 22

the supplemental jurisdiction statute withholds jurisdiction when the original claim is before the court under diversity jurisdiction and the joinder under FRCP 19 would be

Answer 22

inconsistent with the requirements ofdiversityjurisdiction.

Question 23

A sues B; B impleads C; can C raise defenses in their answer that B failed to raise against A?

Answer 23

Yes.

So for instance if B failed to raise statute of limitations defense against A, then C could raise that in their answer to B’s impleader, in addition to any defenses that C may have against B.

Exception: personal defenses may not be raised by the third-party defendant (C) on behalf of the third-party plaintiff (B). Personal defenses include such defenses as a lack of personal jurisdiction or a lack of venue

the federal rule “protects the impleaded third-party defendant where the third-party plaintiff fails or neglects to assert a proper defense to the plaintiff’s action.”

Question 24

Example of improper impleader

Answer 24

P, a pedestrian hurt by a hit-and-run driver, brings a diversity suit against D, claiming that D was the driver of the car that hit P. D purports to implead X, saying “It was a car driven by X, not the one driven by me, that hit P.” That’s not a valid impleader claim, since X’s liability wouldn’t be derivative of D’s liability to P. Therefore, X is entitled to have the third- party claim against him dismissed.

FOR D TO IMPLEAD 3P, D’S CLAIM MUST BE DERIVATIVE, IE, IT MNUST BE THE CASE THAT 3P WILL BE LIABLE TO D ONLY IF D IS FOUND LIABLE TO P FC

Question 25

Improper impleader example when failing to state a claim

Answer 25

, one type of claim that cannot be made in the form of a Rule 14 third-party claim is a so-called “claim” (which is really a “defense” rather than a claim) of the form, “If any party is liable to the main plaintiff, it’s X, not me.” See, e.g., Toberman v. Copas, 800 F. Supp. 1239, 1242 (M.D. Pa. 1992): “A theory that another party is the correct defendant is not appropriate for a third party complaint.”

Since the claim is not a valid third-party claim, the court should (indeed must) dismiss the third-party complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

Question 26

Time limit for interpleading

Answer 26

as long as the defending party serves the third-party complaint within 14 or fewer days after that defending party served its “original answer,” no leave of court is required (i.e., the third-party claim can be served “of right”).