JOINDER
A. Rule 18(a) Joinder of Claims
a. “In General. A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or thirdparty claim, may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims
as it has against an opposing party.”
b. Each claim must have an independent jurisdiction in the federal court.
c. Basic claim joinder refers to the process of joining multiple claims against an
opposing party in one action.
d. Once a party asserts a claim according to the other rules, 18(a) will kick in and
allow a party to assert other claims not arising out of the same transaction or
occurrence.
B. Counterclaims Rule 13(a)&(b)
a. Counterclaims are claims made by defending parties against parties who bring
claims against them. Counterclaims are governed under Rule 13, which classifies
counterclaims as either compulsory or permissive.
b. Counterclaim rules are written in all general language to all to all defending
parties, not just the original defendants!
c. Compulsory- Rule 13(a)
i. is a claim that a defending party has that arises out of the same transaction
or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim, and
does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction
ii. Such counterclaims MUST be asserted by a party or that party waives the
right to assert the claim against the opposing party in the future and is
barred or estopped from asserting it in any subsequent action.
iii. Because compulsory counterclaims arise out of the same transaction or
occurrence as the claim asserted by the opposing party, there will
generally be supplemental jurisdiction (Common nucleus of operative
fact) over such claims in the event that they lack an independent basis for
federal jurisdiction.
iv. The policy behind this is that it ensures efficiency, since the same issues
are likely to arise on the counterclaim, and the same witnesses to be called
to testify if the counterclaim is compulsory. Also, litigating the opposing
claims together will avoid inconsistent verdicts on the issue, which could
result if the claim and counterclaim are submitted to different juries.
v. There will be no take away from 1367(b) because that always applies to
plaintiff joining claims, and here we are dealing with defendants.
vi. EXCEPTIONS:
1. When the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of
another pending action; or
2. The opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other
process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader
on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim
under this rule.
d. Permissive- Rule 13(b)
i. are simply those claims a defending party has against an opponent that do
not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
ii. Such claims may be raised by the party but need not be.
iii. FYI: permissive counter claims must have an individual basis for
jurisdiction.
1. Sometimes it is possible for claims NOT arising out of the same
transaction or occurrence to satisfy the common nucleus of
operative fact under supplemental jurisdiction because it is
broader. (This is very rare)
C. Crossclaims Rule 13(g)
a. If one brings a crossclaim, (which is the same transaction or occurrence) then any
claim can be added via Rule 18(a)
b. “Crossclaim Against a Coparty. A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim
by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or
if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action.
The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the
crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the
crossclaimant.”
**** Unlike compulsory counterclaims, crossclaims do not have to be asserted and
are thus permissive; a party may opt not to assert a crossclaim without fear of
forfeiting the claim.
D. Transaction or occurrence defined
a. “Logical relationship” to the original claim, generally meaning it arose from the
“same aggregate set of operative facts”.
b. If the joined claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, you’re going
to satisfy the “same common nucleus of operative fact” test for supplemental
jurisdiction.
JOINDER OF PARTIES
E. Rule 20 – Permissive Joinder of Parties (joined by plaintiff)
a. Rule 20(a)(1)—Permissive
i. Plaintiffs may join together in one action as plaintiffs if:
1. The joined plaintiffs assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or
in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;
AND
2. The joined plaintiffs assert claims that share in common any
question of law or fact.
a. A + C v. B
b. (There is only a small chance that the joined party’s claim
would only meet one of the requirements)
Rule 20(a)(2) — Permissive
i. Plaintiffs may join together in one action multiple defendants if:
1. Plaintiffs assert against the joined defendants any right to relief
jointly and severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising
out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; AND
2. Any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in
the action.
a. A v. B + C
b. (There is only a small chance that the joined claims would
only meet one of the requirements)
Rule 20(b)- Protective Measures
i. The court may issue orders for separate trials (when talking about
permissively joining parties)
1. Same as 42(b), except 42(b) is more broad.
“Contamination Theory” (Exxon)  1367(b) takes away if a plaintiff added by a
defendant would destroy complete residential diversity (don’t worry about AIC)
i. Otherwise 1367(b) would not take away because it was a defendant not
added by a federal rule.
If both requirements laid out in Rule 20 are satisfied, the parties MAY be joined.
i. However, the requirements of personal jurisdiction, subject matter
jurisdiction, and venue will have to be satisfied with respect to such
parties and the claims associated with them.
Policy
i. To promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of
disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.
g.
F. Rule 14 — Impleader/Third party practice
a. Rule 14(a)(1)- When a defending party may bring in a third party
i. A defending party may, as third- party plaintiff, serve a summons and
complaint on a non- party.
1. Occurs when a third party defendant (non-party joined) may be
liable to D for the P’s claim (Price v. CTB).
a. 3rd party P= original D in P v. D
b. 3rd party D= non- party joined by original D
ii. Want to avoid double liability
1. D should not have to pay for the whole judgement against her, so
she impleads a third party defendant into the claim.
a. Derivative liability
i. Third party plaintiff cannot assert “it was him not
me” BUT can assert
ii. “If it’s me, then its him” (impleaded parties must
be liable for all or part of P’s claim)
1. ***Impleader is only viable where the third
party defendant’s liability to the original
defendant is SECONDARY to the original
defendant’s liability to the plaintiff. ***
b. Impleader has two substantive foundations,
i. Tort- “Contribution”
1. A claim that allows one tortfeasor to demand that another fellow
wrongdoer “contribute” to the damages payable to the harmed
plaintiff.
ii. Contract- “indemnity”
1. based on a contractual agreement made between two parties, in
which one party agrees to pay for potential losses or damages
caused by the other party.
c. Rule 14(a)(2)
i. Third party defendant’s
1. MUST assert any defense against the third- party plaintiff’s claim
under Rule 12
2. MUST assert any counterclaim against the third party plaintiff
under Rule 13(a),
3. MAY assert counterclaims 13(b), or crossclaims-13(g) against
third- party defendant
4. MAY assert against the plaintiff any defense that the third party
plaintiff has to the plaintiff’s original claim
5. MAY assert against the plaintiff any claim arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s
claim against the third party plaintiff(original D)
d. Rule 14(a)(3)
i. Plaintiff’s claim against a third party defendant ????
1. Plaintiff can sue his ass too, queen of the lawsuit
2. The plaintiff may assert (against the third-party defendant) any
claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff. The
third-party defendant must then assert any defense (R12) and any
counterclaim (R 13a), and may assert any counterclaim (R 13b) or
any crossclaim (R 13g).
e. Rule 14(a)(4)
i. Motion to Strike, Sever, or try Separately
1. Any party may move to strike the third party claim, to serve it, or
to try it separately
2. Similar to Rule 42(B)
f. Rule 14(a)(5)
i. Third-Party Defendant's Claim Against a Nonparty.
1. A third-party defendant may proceed under this rule against a
nonparty who is or may be liable to the third-party defendant for
all or part of any claim against it.
g. Rule 14(b)
i. When a Plaintiff May Bring in a Third Party
1. When a claim is asserted against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may bring
in a third party if this rule would allow a defendant to do so.
G. Rule 19 Required Joinder of parties
a. 19(a)(1)
i. The court MUST join a nonparty deemed necessary, who is subject to
service of process (PJ), as long as their joining will not deprive the court
of subject matter jurisdiction.
1. The non- party is deemed necessary if
a. 19(a)(1)(A)- in their absence, complete relief among the
existing parties cannot be rendered
b. 19(a)(1)(B)- they claim an interest relating to the subject of
the action and disregarding that action may:
i. Impair or implead their ability to protect that
interest
ii. Leave an existing party at risk of double or multiple
obligations.
ii. 19(a)(2)-Joinder by Court Order
1. If the necessary non- party is not joined, the court must order they
be joined.
2. If the nonparty refused to join as a plaintiff, the may be joined as a
defendant or an involuntary plaintiff.
b. 19(b)-When Joinder is Not Feasible
i. When joinder of a necessary party is not feasible, the court might have to
dismiss the case.
ii. The court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the
action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.
iii. Factors the court considers:
1. Extent to which judgement rendered in a person’s absence might
prejudice that person or existing parties
2. Extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:
a. Protective provisions in the judgement
b. Shaping the relief
c. Other measures (is there any other way to protect the
party?)
3. Would the judgement be adequate without the added party being
joined?
4. Would the plaintiff have an adequate remedy if the action were
dismissed for nonjoinder? (The plaintiff could always go to state
court but is it fair to deprive plaintiff of her choice of venue?)
H. Rule 24 Intervention
a. Allows an unjoined party to “elbow” his way into a suit where no joined party
wants him
b. 24(a)- Intervention of Right
i. 4 requirements (if all are meant the court must let you in)
1. Must be brought within a timely manner
2. The intervenor must have an “interest” in the property or
transaction that is the subject of the suit
3. The interest must be in some strong way at risk
4. Will be denied if someone already in the suit can adequately
represent the intervening party’s interest.
a. Court said there is a low standard here.
i. Aka there is no way to say that if the unjoined party
was NOT let in, that their views could be
adequately heard by another.
c. 24(b)- Permissive Intervention
i. Even if these factors are meant, the court still has the final say if they will
be allowed to join
1. given the right to intervene through a federal statute
2. has a claim or defense that shares the same common question of
law or fact
I. Rule 22 Interpleader
a. Provides a procedure by which a stakeholder- often a bank or insurer- can require
the competing claimants to litigate their rights to the fine or property in question
i. Shareholder v. claimant + claimant
1. Shareholder doesn’t want to deal with the money or property
involved so wants to hand it over to the court.
b. Also allows interpleader even if stakeholder (plaintiff) asserts some claim on the
asset… making all parties claimants.
i. Shareholder/claimant v. claimant + claimant
c. EX: Prof. Genetin finds hundred dollar bill on the floor….
d. Interpleader will not be allowed if the forum lacks jurisdiction over the claimants.
e. “Statutory” Interpleader VS “Rule” Interpleader
Issue
SMJ/
Diversity

AIM

“Statutory” Interpleader
MINIMAL diversity determined as
between CLAIMANTS
o We are not concerned with
shareholders here, only
claimants. Don’t worry about
the “v”
Greater than or equal to $500


“Rule” Interpleader
COMPLETE diversity
determined as between
claimants and shareholders
o Always look for
complete diversity on
both sides of the “v”
More than $75,000
Personal
Juris.

Venue

Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction
o As long as D has minimum
contacts anywhere in US, he
can be served and hailed
anywhere in US
Residence of one or more claimants
o Again only look to
claimants, not shareholders

Ordinary PJ and service of
process

Ordinary Venue Rules
o §1391