Rules 13, 14, and 18 - 22: Crossclaims, Counterclaims, Third-Party Practice, and Joinder

Question 1

What is joinder? (Q)

Answer 1

Joinder is the process of assembling the parties and claims in a civil case. Joinder is accomplished by identifying the parties and claims in the pleadings, then serving parties with process when necessary.

Question 2

How many claims may one party assert against an opposing party in one lawsuit? (Q) (GG)

Answer 2

A party may join as many claims as it has against the opposing party, regardless of whether the claims are related.

However, if the federal claim is resolved, each claim must independently meet the requirements for subject-matter jurisdiction. 18a

Question 3

Is a party required to join all claims that it has against another party in one case? (Q)

Answer 3

No. Strictly speaking, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the joinder of any claims. Nonetheless, omitting claims that are closely related to other claims in the case might lead to unwanted consequences, such as an inability to raise those claims later.

Question 4

Is a party absolutely required to assert a compulsory claim? (Q)

Answer 4

A party is not absolutely required to assert a compulsory counterclaim. However a party who fails to do so may lose the ability to raise that claim in a later case.

Question 5

What is the difference between permissive joinder and compulsory joinder of parties? (Q)

Answer 5

Permissive joinder means that joinder of a party is optional, while compulsory joinder means that a party must be joined, if possible.

Question 6

Under what circumstances may multiple plaintiffs join in a single case? (Q) (GG)

Answer 6

Multiple plaintiffs may join in one case if:

they seek relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative;
their claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
the case involves some question of law or fact that is common to all plaintiffs. 20a1ab

Question 7

A pedestrian was struck and injured by a delivery van. The van was owned and operated by a national courier service. A bystander witnessed the accident and suffered emotional distress as a result. The pedestrian planned to sue the courier service for negligence. The bystander planned to sue the courier service for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Both of these claims fell within federal diversity jurisdiction.

Can the pedestrian and the bystander join as plaintiffs in a single federal suit against the courier service? (Q)

Answer 7

Yes. The pedestrian and the bystander can join as plaintiffs. Multiple plaintiffs may join in one case if:

they seek relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative;
their claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
the case involves some question of law or fact that is common to all plaintiffs.
Here, all of these conditions are satisfied. The pedestrian and the bystander will likely seek relief severally against the courier; that is, each plaintiff will seek damages only for that plaintiff’s own injuries. The plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same occurrence: the collision of the van with the pedestrian. Finally, the case involves questions of law and fact common to both plaintiffs, including the circumstances of the accident and the negligence of the courier service. Thus, both plaintiffs may join in a single case.

Question 8

Under what circumstances may multiple defendants be joined in a single case? (Q)

Answer 8

Multiple defendants may be joined in one case if:

(1) Claims are asserted against the defendants jointly, severally, or in the alternative;
(2) those claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(3) the case involves some question of law or fact that is common to all defendants. 20a2ab

Question 9

Under what procedural conditions is a party one who must be joined, if possible? (Q)

Answer 9

A party must be joined, if possible, if:

(1) without that party, the court cannot provide complete relief among the existing parties; or
(2) the party claims an interest in the case, and a judgment in that party’s absence may (a) impair that party’s ability to protect his or her interests or (b) risk subjecting an existing party to multiple or inconsistent obligations.

Parties who satisfy these conditions are sometimes called required parties, and their joinder is said to be compulsory.

The caveat if possible generally means that a required party must be joined if (1) the court can acquire personal jurisdiction over that party, and (2) the required party’s presence will not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction.

Question 10

Must venue be proper as to a required party who is joined in the case? (Q)

Answer 10

Yes. If a required party objects to venue, and venue is improper as to that party, then the court must dismiss that party from the case.

Question 11

To join a required party, must the court have personal jurisdiction over that party? (Q)

Answer 11

Yes. The court must have personal jurisdiction over any party who is joined in a case, including a party who is designated as a required party under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Question 12

Can a required party be joined in a diversity case if the party would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction? (Q)

Answer 12

No. Even a required party cannot be joined if that party’s joinder would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction.

Question 13

If a required party is outside the court’s personal jurisdiction, or if the joinder of the required party would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction, what procedural steps must the court take? (Q)

Answer 13

If a required party cannot be joined because of jurisdictional barriers, the court must determine whether, in fairness, the case should either proceed without the required party or be dismissed. In making this decision, the court should consider:

the extent to which a judgment will prejudice the absent party or the existing parties;
the extent to which a judgment could be framed to lessen any prejudice, for example, by providing limited or provisional relief;
whether a judgment would be adequate without the absent party; and
whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy elsewhere if the case were dismissed.

Question 14

What is a counterclaim? (Q)

Answer 14

A counterclaim is a claim by a defendant against a plaintiff. More technically, a counterclaim is a claim by any defending party against someone who is asserting a claim against the defending party.

Question 15

Under what conditions does one claim arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as another claim for purposes of the federal pleading rules? (Q)

Answer 15

In federal pleading, a claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as another claim if the two claims arise from the same events, involve largely identical issues of law and fact, or will be litigated using substantially the same evidence. These claims are sometimes said to share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Question 16

What is the difference between compulsory and permissive counterclaims in federal litigation? (Q)

Answer 16

Compulsory counterclaims are those that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim. A counterclaim is not compulsory, however, if it requires the addition of parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

By definition, all counterclaims that are not compulsory are permissive. A party is allowed to plead a permissive counterclaim, but the failure to plead it does not bar the party from raising it in a later proceeding.

Question 17

What is a compulsory counterclaim? (Q)

Answer 17

Compulsory counterclaims are those that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim. A counterclaim is not compulsory, however, if it requires the addition of parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

Question 18

What is a permissive counterclaim? (Q) (GG)

Answer 18

By definition, all counterclaims that are not compulsory are permissive. That is, they do not arise from the events of the case. A party is allowed to plead a permissive counterclaim, but the failure to plead it does not bar the party from raising it in a later proceeding.

Question 19

What is a crossclaim? (Q)

Answer 19

A crossclaim is a claim by one party against a co-party; e.g., a claim by one plaintiff against another plaintiff or by one defendant against another defendant. 13g

Unlike some counterclaims, crossclaims are not compulsory in federal procedure. Thus, a party is allowed to plead a crossclaim, but the failure to plead it does not bar the party from raising it in a separate proceeding. This is true regardless of whether the crossclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as another claim in the case.

Question 20

The plaintiff, a marshmallow sales representative from State A, sued the defendant, a citizen of State B, in federal court for extensive injuries that the plaintiff received from a fight with the defendant in an elevator. The plaintiff’s medical bills totaled $15,000, and he also alleges $70,000 in damages for pain and suffering. The defendant has a claim against the plaintiff for breach of contract, in that one of the plaintiff’s deliveries turned out to be melted marshmallows. The defendant alleges $76,000 in damages.

May the defendant have his claim heard as a counterclaim in the plaintiff’s action? (Canvas)

Answer 20

Yes, because the defendant may bring the claim as a permissive counterclaim.

No, because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying claim is incorrect. The court has diversity jurisdiction over the underlying action, given that the plaintiff has $85,000 of claims against a single defendant and all plaintiffs are of diverse citizenships from all defendants.

Question 21

What is impleader? (Q)

Answer 21

Impleader occurs when a defendant joins a third party who is or may be liable to the defendant if the defendant is found liable to the plaintiff.

That is, a defendant may implead a third party to seek indemnity or reimbursement for the plaintiff’s claim. Thus, the third party will be liable to the defendant only if the defendant is liable to the original plaintiff. Impleader is most commonly used by defendants, but it may be used by any party who is defending a claim, such as a plaintiff defending a counterclaim.

Question 22

What terms are used to identify the party asserting impleader and the party who is impleaded, respectively? (Q)

Answer 22

The party asserting impleader is called the third-party plaintiff, and the party who is impleaded is called the third-party defendant.

Question 23

If a defendant believes that another actor is directly liable to the plaintiff, may the defendant implead that person? (Q)

Answer 23

No. Impleader is not used to claim that someone other than the defendant is directly liable to the plaintiff. Instead, impleader is a way for a defendant, in the role of third-party plaintiff, to seek indemnity from a third party in case the defendant is found liable to the plaintiff.

Question 24

If a defendant believes that a third party is directly liable to the defendant, can the defendant implead that person? (Q)

Answer 24

No. Impleader is not used to claim that someone is directly liable to the defendant. Instead, impleader is a way for a defendant, in the role of third-party plaintiff, to seek indemnity from a third party in case the defendant is found liable to the plaintiff. This is not the same as saying that another party is directly and independently liable to the defendant.

Question 25

A plaintiff bought an appliance from a retailer. The appliance caught fire and injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the retailer in federal court for personal injury, seeking $300,000 in damages. The retailer had a distribution agreement with a wholesaler, through which the retailer obtained appliances for sale. The retailer believed that, under the distribution agreement, the wholesaler was required to indemnify the retailer against any claims for personal injury caused by an appliance.

Disregarding questions of jurisdiction, may the retailer make the wholesaler a party to the suit? (Q)

Answer 25

Yes. The retailer may implead the wholesaler. A defendant may bring in, or implead, a third party who is or may be liable to the defendant if the defendant is found liable to the plaintiff. In this process, the defendant is called the third-party plaintiff, while the third party is called the third-party defendant.

Here, the retailer believes that it is entitled to indemnity from the wholesaler if the retailer is found liable to the plaintiff. Thus, the retailer may implead the wholesaler, who will then become a party to the suit as a third-party defendant.

Question 26

What documents must the third-party plaintiff serve on the third-party defendant to bring about impleader? (Q)

Answer 26

The third-party plaintiff must serve a summons and complaint on the third-party defendant. In this way, the third-party defendant is afforded due process in being brought into the case.

Question 27

How much time does a third-party plaintiff have to file a third-party complaint? (Q)

Answer 27

A third-party plaintiff may file a third-party complaint without leave of court within 14 days after the third-party plaintiff serves its answer to the claim against it. After this time, the third-party plaintiff must move for the court’s permission to file a third-party complaint.

Question 28

What specific responses must a third-party defendant make in responding to a third-party complaint? (Q)

Answer 28

In its responsive pleading, a third-party defendant is required to:

respond to the allegations of the third-party complaint,
assert any defenses to the third-party complaint, and
assert any compulsory counterclaims.

Question 29

What optional responses may a third-party defendant make in responding to a third-party complaint? (Q)

Answer 29

In its responsive pleading, a third-party defendant may, but is not required to, assert:

any permissive counterclaims,
any crossclaims against other third-party defendants,
any of the third-party plaintiff’s defenses to the original plaintiff’s claim, and
any claim against the original plaintiff arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the original plaintiff’s claim.

Question 30

May a third-party defendant implead an additional party? (Q)

Answer 30

Yes. A third-party defendant may use impleader to seek indemnity from an additional party. The impleader procedure is the same for any party who seeks to implead a third party.

Question 31

In general, may the original plaintiff assert a claim against a third-party defendant who is impleaded by the original defendant? (Q)

Answer 31

Yes. In general, the original plaintiff may assert a claim against a third-party defendant who is impleaded by the original defendant. The plaintiff’s claim against the third-party defendant must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim against the original defendant.

In a diversity case, however, such claims are limited by the supplemental-jurisdiction statute. The plaintiff’s claim against the third-party defendant will be excluded from supplemental jurisdiction if that claim is inconsistent with diversity jurisdiction, e.g., if the claim is against a non-diverse third-party defendant. In that case, the plaintiff’s claim would require some other basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

Question 32

In general, may the original plaintiff implead a third-party defendant? (Q)

Answer 32

Yes. In general, the original plaintiff may implead a third-party defendant, just as the original defendant may. For example, the plaintiff might implead a third-party defendant to indemnify the plaintiff against the original defendant’s counterclaim.

In a diversity case, however, such claims are limited by the supplemental jurisdiction statute. The plaintiff’s claim against the third-party defendant will be excluded from supplemental jurisdiction if that claim is inconsistent with diversity jurisdiction, e.g., if the claim is against a non-diverse third-party defendant. In that case, the plaintiff’s claim would require some other basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

Question 33

What happens if someone doesn’t plead a compulsory counterclaim? (Q)

Answer 33

A compulsory counterclaim that is not pleaded may be lost; that is, the party may be barred from raising it in a later proceeding.

Question 34

Can a defendant add another person in a counterclaim against a plaintiff? (GG)

Answer 34

Yes as long as she seeks relief from that person arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as her claim is against the first plaintiff. 13h

Question 35

What is interpleader? (Q)

Answer 35

Interpleader is a process for resolving multiple and potentially inconsistent claims to a single piece of property, such as a parcel of land or a limited sum of money.

Question 36

In an interpleader case, what are the stake, the stakeholder, and the claimants? (Q)

Answer 36

The property in dispute is called the stake, and the party who possesses the stake is called the stakeholder. The parties who claim an interest in the stake are called the claimants.

Question 37

In an interpleader case, what does the stakeholder typically do with the stake during the litigation? (Q)

Answer 37

During an interpleader case, the stakeholder typically deposits the stake into court or provides equivalent surety.

Question 38

What is the legal benefit of interpleader for the stakeholder? (Q)

Answer 38

Interpleader allows a stakeholder to avoid multiple liability. If the claimants filed a series of individual suits, the stakeholder might be declared liable to each claimant, even if the stake were not large enough to satisfy all of the claims. Interpleader determines all claimants’ rights to the stake in a single proceeding, in which the stakeholder’s liability is limited to the stake itself.

Question 39

What two sources of federal law permit interpleader? (Q)

Answer 39

Interpleader is permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22. This is called Rule 22 interpleader. As an alternative, a party may assert interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, which is called statutory interpleader.

Question 40

How can a party initiate the process of interpleader under Rule 22? (Q)

Answer 40

A plaintiff can assert Rule 22 interpleader as an original claim, while a defendant can raise Rule 22 interpleader as a crossclaim or a counterclaim.

Question 41

How can a party initiate interpleader under the interpleader statute? (Q)

Answer 41

Statutory interpleader is initiated by the stakeholder who may file an original action as the plaintiff.

Question 42

Does Rule 22 interpleader include any special requirements for jurisdiction or venue? (Q)

Answer 42

No. The requirements for subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue in Rule 22 interpleader cases are the same as those that apply generally in federal cases.

Question 43

What is minimal diversity, as distinguished from complete diversity? (Q)

Answer 43

Minimal diversity requires that at least one party must be of diverse citizenship from at least one adverse party. More simply, minimal diversity requires that at least one plaintiff and one defendant must be of diverse citizenship. By contrast, a typical federal diversity case requires complete diversity, under which all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants.

Question 44

What are the requirements for federal subject-matter jurisdiction in a statutory interpleader case? (Q)

Answer 44

Under statutory interpleader, the federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over any interpleader case in which the stake is worth $500 or more and at least one claimant is diverse from one other claimant. The stakeholder’s citizenship is disregarded. Thus, statutory interpleader requires only minimal diversity plus a smaller amount in controversy than a typical federal diversity case.

Question 45

What is misjoinder of parties? (Q)

Answer 45

Misjoinder means that a party has been joined improperly. For example, one party might misjoin another party over whom the court lacks personal jurisdiction or as to whom venue is improper.

Question 46

If any parties are misjoined, what may the court do to correct the misjoinder? (Q)

Answer 46

The court may dismiss a misjoined party on a party’s motion or on the court’s own initiative. The court may also sever any claim against a party and require that the claim be tried separately so as not to complicate the main action. Misjoinder is not, however, a reason to dismiss the entire case.