Civ Pro Ii Joinder

Front 1

FRCP 18

JOINDER OF CLAIMS

Back 1

allows a party who has made a claim against another to join further claims with it against the same opponent. It authorizes

claim joinder without limitation, regardless of whether the claim to be joined is related to the pre-existing claims or not, as long as the

joined claim satisfies subject matter jurisdiction requirements

Front 2

[FRCP 13(a)] or permissive [FRCP 13(b)].

COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSSCLAIM

Back 2

A party may assert a counterclaim against one who previously asserted a claim against him/her. Counterclaims may be compulsory

Front 3

RULE 13(a)

Compulsory Counterclaims

Back 3

A claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim must be asserted in the

present action or is forever barred, except for the following claims:

claims requiring joinder of parties over whom the court lacks personal jurisdiction.

in rem claims.

quasi in rem claims.

Most federal courts interpret “arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim” as

being logically related to the underlying claim.

Compulsory counterclaims fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction and thus require no showing of independent grounds for

subject matter jurisdiction.

Front 4

Rule 13(a)

Permissive Counterclaims

Back 4

Any claim against an opponent that does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opponent’s claim is permissive in

nature. Failure to assert it does not bar its assertion in a subsequent litigation. Generally, permissive counterclaims fall outside the

court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Front 5

rule 13(g)

Cross-Claims

Back 5

A party may assert a claim against a co-party – a cross-claim – arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of:

the original action;

a counterclaim; or

relating to property that is the subject matter of the original action.

Cross-claims are generally within federal courts’ supplemental jurisdiction. One may either plead a cross-claim or reserve it for

further litigation; cross-claims are never compulsory under FRCP 13(g).

Front 6

PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES

FRCP 20

Back 6

permits joinder of plaintiffs or defendants provided that the claims joined to bring multiple parties into the lawsuit:

(1) arise from the same transaction or occurrence; and

(2) have a common question of law or fact.

Additional defendants to be joined must meet the requirements of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, as supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to such claims. Thus, in a diversity action, joinder of additional defendants must not destroy complete diversity among the parties. The jurisdictional amount must also be met by each defendant individually; such claims cannot be aggregated.

Front 7

Compulsory Joinder

FRCP 19

Back 7

compels joinder in certain circumstances where the adjudication of pending claims will be compromised without the involvement of the party sought to be joined. FRCP 19(a) provides a framework for determining whether the party is “necessary” to

the action. A necessary party must be joined if feasible. If joinder is not feasible, a court must determine, pursuant to FRCP 19(b)

whether the person’s non-involvement will be so detrimental that the case cannot proceed without the person. Such parties are deemed “indispensable.”

Front 8

Necessary Parties

FRCP 19(a)

Back 8

sets forth the circumstances under which a party is deemed “necessary”:

(1) if complete relief cannot be accorded among existing parties in his absence;

(2) the absent party’s ability to protect his interest relating to the subject of the action may be impaired without his involvement in the

action;

(3) disposition of the action in his absence may subject existing parties to a “substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or

otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.”

So long as joinder is feasible, a necessary party must be joined in order for the lawsuit to continue. If one sought to be joined as a plaintiff does not join voluntarily, under limited circumstances, the court may compel such party to join, making the party an

“involuntary plaintiff.”

Front 9

Impleader (Third-Party Practice)

Back 9

[1] Nature of Third-Party Practice

Impleader is a device by which a defendant can join a third party who may either share or be legally responsible for defendant’s

liability to plaintiff. In this capacity, defendant becomes a third-party plaintiff, the added party becomes a third-party defendant.

The defendant, as a third-party plaintiff, may also join other claims against the third-party defendant. Impleader furthermore makes

available to the third-party defendant all the options available to defendants, e.g., counterclaims, cross-claims, and impleader of yet

additional parties that could be fully or partially responsible for any liability the third-party defendant is found to have to the original

defendant.

Front 10

Requirements for Impleader

Under FRCP 14,

Back 10

a claim sought to be impleaded must:

(1) have arisen out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original plaintiff’s claim; and

(2) be contingent or derivative.

Derivative Liability

Contribution – The right of contribution typically arises among joint tortfeasors, two or more persons

Indemnity – A right to indemnification either arises out of an express contractual provision whereby one party agrees to indemnify

Jurisdictional Requirements

Jurisdictional Requirements

Subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied because third-party claims fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Personal

Jurisdiction may be had over a third-party defendant if he can be served within the 100-mile bulge of the courthouse. [FRCP 4(K)(1)(B)]

Front 11

Two forms of

interpleader exist in federal practice: one under FRCP 22 and one under 28 U.S.C. § 1335.

Back 11

When there are two or more claimants to a specific property or monetary fund (“stake”), interpleader allows a defendant to avoid

multiple actions regarding the same stake by forcing all claimants to proceed against the stakeholder in one lawsuit.

Front 12

Intervention

FRCP 24

Back 12

Intervention, governed in federal trials by FRCP 24, provides a means for outsiders to join a lawsuit on their own initiative.

Intervention may be of right under 24(a) or permissive under 24(b). In either case, there is no supplemental jurisdiction over claims.

Front 13

Intervention of Right

FRCP 24(a)

.

Back 13

Intervention of right does not require court permission if three conditions are met:

(1) the intervenor claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action;

(2) the intervenor demonstrates that the lawsuit carries a possibility of significant detriment to the intervenor;

(3) there is a substantial possibility that none of the present parties will adequately represent the intervenor’s interest.

Front 14

Permissive Intervention

FRCP 24(b)

Back 14

If one does not qualify to intervene as of right, he may petition the court to do so under FRCP 24(b). The claim or defense must have

a question of law or fact in common with the pending action.

Front 15

Plant v. Blazer Financial Services

Back 15

1. A permissive counterclaim must have an independent jurisdictional basis

2. Compulsory counterclaims fall within the ancillary jurisdiction of the federal courts

3. A counter claim is compulsory if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim.

4. Four tests have been suggested to determine whether a claim and counterclaim arise from the same transaction:

a. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?

b. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the defendant’s claim absent the compulsory

counterclaim rule?

c. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as

defendant’s counter claim?

d. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? This is the

majority test. Hallmark is flexibility.

5. Logical relationship exists when the counter claim arises out of the same aggregate of operative

facts in that the same operative facts serve as the basis of both claims or the aggregate core of facts

upon which the claim rests activates additional legal rights, otherwise dormant in the defendant.

Front 16

Mosley v. General Motors Corp.

Back 16

–10 plaintiffs alleging race and gender discrimination

1. Test:

a. Same transaction or occurrence

i. Logical relationship

ii. Common transaction or series of transactions

b. Common issues of law and fact

2. Court may order common trial on common issues and separate trials for different issues after the

common issues have been decided.

v. FRCP 14(a) When Defendant May Bring in Third Party At any time after commencement of the

action a defending party, as a third party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to the third party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff.

Front 17

Derivative Liability

Back 17

Derivative Liability exists when the defendant/third party plaintiff says “If I am liable to the

plaintiff, then my liability is only technical or secondary or partial, and the third party defendant is

derivatively liable and must reimburse me for all or part (at least ½ for a joint tortfeasor) of anything I must

pay plaintiff.

Front 18

Temple v. Synthes Corp.—

Back 18

should plaintiff be required to join claim against hospital and doctor with product liability claim against screw manufacturer? No.

1. It has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants

in a single lawsuit.

2. Should try to preserve plaintiff’s choice of who to sue and where.

Front 19

Helzberg’s Diamond Shops v. Valley West Des Moines Shopping Cntr.

Back 19

1. Because Lord’s had the opportunity to waive personal jurisdiction and protect its interest and

chose not to the suit will not be lost for failure to join them even if there is a possibility that the

shopping center could end up with inconsistent obligations.