Joinder of Claims & Parties
Review of Claim Joinder
Types
-(1) Basic Claim Joinder
-(2) Counterclaims
-(3) Crossclaims
-(1) Basic Claim Joinder [Rule 18]
-Refers to the process of joining multiple claims against an opposing party in one action.
-Rule 18  party asserting a claim may join as many claims of any kind (related or unrelated) as
the party has against an opposing party.
-applies to claims, counterclaims, crossclaims, or 3rd party claims
-NO limitation on the # or type of claims joined to the original claim.
-However, in order to be able to join unrelated claims, the party must first successfully
join a related claim first.
-Claims joined under Rule 18(a) must independently satisfy SMJ & venue
-Decision to join unrelated claims under 18(a) is discretionary
-if a party fails to join them, they can raise it later (next suit) but risk having it precluded
under claim preclusion
-(2) CounterClaims [Rule 13]
-Claims made by defending parties against Plaintiffs.
-If A brings claim against B, B can assert a counterclaim
-No limit to # or type of CC, but each must independently satisfy jurisdictional requirements.
-Governed by Rule 13  claims can be either:
-(1) compulsory [Rule 13(a)]; or
-claim that a defending party has that arises out of same transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.
-must assert compulsory or else it is waived in the future
-generally supplemental juris. Because they arise out
-(2) permissive [Rule 13(b)]
-claims a defending party has against Plaintiff that do not arise out of same
transaction
-less likely to have supplemental jurisdiction.
-Logical Relationship Test  if not hearing the 2 claims together would result in duplicative cases
-(3) Crossclaims [Rule 13(g)]
-A crossclaim is co-party vs co-party (PvP, DvD)
-If A brings claim against B & C, and B has a claim against C  B’s claim = crossclaim
-Governed by Rule 13(g)  these are similar to compulsory crossclaims; proper if:
-(1) arise out of same transaction & occurrence that is the subject matter of the
original action or of a counterclaim that has been asserted; or
-(2) also proper if they assert contingent or derivative liability based on claims against
the crossclaimant
-(3) if it states a claim that relates to any property that is subject matter of the original
action.
-UNLIKE compulsory counterclaims  crossclaims do not have to be asserted = permissive
-if a party does not raise a crossclaim, they don’t have to fear about losing it
-BUT if a coparty asserts a crossclaim against you  you must assert all
transitionally related claims available as compulsory counterclaims under 13(a) or
else they are waived
Review of Party Joinder
Types
-(1) Permissive Party Joinder
-(2) Compulsory Party Joinder
-(3) Impleader (3rd party practice)
-(4) Intervention [“Party Crasher” Rule 24]
-as of right
-permissive intervention
-(1) Permissive Party Joinder [Rule 20]
-Rule 20 plaintiff’s may join together in one action IF they assert claims arising out of the same
transaction and occurrence involving common questions of law or fact
-(1) arise out of same transaction and occurrence; and
-(2) involve common questions of law OR fact
-For defendants to be joined, the claims asserted against them must:
-(1) arise out of same transaction and occurrence; and
-(2) involve common questions of law OR fact;
-it is possible for claims to arise out of same T&C but not involve common question of law or fact
-in addition to satisfying the 2 requirements, it is still subject to jurisdictional & venue req.
-(2) Compulsory Party Joinder [Rule 19]
-Under Rule 19, certain persons not party to an action must be joined to it, if feasible, in order for
the court to render a just resolution.
-Persons to be joined are called necessary parties who fit into 1 of 3 categories:
-(1) if in the party’s absence that complete relief can NOT be accorded among the existing
parties [Rule 19(a)(1)(A)]
-Ex: assume A sues B to recover property he sold to B and C on the ground of
misrepresentation. Because C is a co-owner of the property, if C is not joined, A will
not be able to recover the property without initiating a second action against C. A
thus cannot get complete relief in its action solely against B. Thus, C is a
necessary party.
-(2) if the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and disposition
of the action in the person’s absence may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect
that interest [Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i)]
-Ex: A sues B seeking payment of money from a limited fund. If C is similarly entitled
to payment from that fund, but a judgement in A v. B would deplete the fund, C’s
future ability to collect their interest would be impaired. C is thus a necessary party.
-(3) if the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and disposition of the
action in their absence would leave the existing parties at a substantial risk of incurring
double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest
[Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii)]
-Ex: A sues B for possession of land. B leases the land from C. If A prevails in the action
against B, B will lose possession but will still be obligated to pay rent to C. Thus, C
should be treated as a necessary party to avoid possibility B would be subject to two
inconsistent obligations.
-An example of a party who would not be considered necessary under Rule 19(a) is a joint
tortfeasor
-i.e. if A sues B (manufacturer of defective medical device) for negligence, then C (the Dr.) and
D(the hospital) would be considered joint tortfeasors and not necessary under Rule 19.
-Supreme court has held joint tortfeasors to be permissive parties
-(2)(a) What if a necessary party refuses to join under Rule 19(a)?
-Joinder of necessary parties under Rule 19(a) is mandatory and parties that refuse to join will
still be considered part and the outcome of the action will be binding against them.
-(2)(b) What if a necessary party is unable to be joined?
-There are 3 scenarios where joinder of necessary parties would not be feasible:
-(1) if the court cannot obtain personal jurisdiction over the party
-(2) if there is no SMJ over claims asserted by or against (destroy diversity)
-(3) if the court would lack venue over the claims pertaining to the party to be joined (if the
party objects to venue)
-(2)(c) What can the court do if a necessary party is unable to be joined?
-Courts can declare the inability to join a necessary party is of sufficient concern to prevent the
court from proceeding at all in the party’s absence  referred to as indispensable parties
-Test used by court involves 4 factors:
-(1) extent to which a judgement made in their absence would be prejudicial to the absent
party or existing parties;
-(2) extent to which the prejudice can be avoided or lessened
-(3) whether a judgement made in their absence would be adequate; and
-(4) whether Plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if action is dimissed for the nonjoinder of the necessary party
-The 4 factors must be applied to the specific facts of the case with equity and good conscience
-If it is determined that a party is indispensable but cannot feasibly be joined, the case is
dismissed
-(3) Third-party Practice (Impleader) [Rule 14]
-Under Rule 14(a), a defending party can assert a claim against a nonparty (3rd party Defendant)
claiming that the 3rd party defendant is liable to the defending party (now a 3rd party Plaintiff)
for all or part of the claim being asserted against the original defendant (3rd party plaintiff)
-Ex: A sues B and B feels C should be liable to B if B is liable to A, then B can bring such a
claim against C, impleading C into the action as a 3rd party defendant
-(3)(a) What is required for the initial claim to implead a 3rd party?
-Rule 14 provides that initial claims against 3rd parties can only be for reimbursement for all or
party of any amount the original defendant(3rd party P) would owe to the plaintiff IF the plaintiff
prevails. [What claims can the original D bring against the 3rd party D?]
-Thus the original defending party cannot simply implead a 3rd party for a related claim,
even if it arises out of the same T&C.
-(3)(b) What subsequent claims can be brought once the initial claim has been satisfied?
-Once the initial claim as been asserted, the original defendant (3rd party P) may join additional
claims against the 3rd party defendant under Rule 18(a) [related or unrelated]
-claims that may be brought against 3rd parties are permissive only and is up to discretion
of the original defendant (3rd party P).
-(3)(c) Can the Original Plaintiff bring anything against the 3rd party Defendant?
-Original Plaintiff (P1) may bring assert a claim against the 3rd party Defendant (D2), so long
as the claim arises out of the same T&C as the original claim against original defendnat
(D1/P2).
-After successfully doing so, additional unrelated claims could be joined against the 3rd
party defendant (D2) under Rule 18(a)
-(3)(c) How to determine if the 3rd party Defendant (D2) can be joined?
-For the 3rd party Defendant (D2) to be joined, the court must have:
-(1) personal jurisdiction over 3rd party Defendant (D2); and
-(2) SMJ over claims against 3rd parties
-achieved through (1) FQJ or Diversity; or (2) supplemental jurisdiction
-A claim against a 3rd party will generally satisfy supplemental jurisdiction
-(3) Venue  typically not an issue IF venue is proper in the original action
-(3)(d) What situations will supplemental jurisdiction NOT apply?
-(1) state-law claims by Plaintiffs in Diversity actions against non-diverse 3rd party
Defendants will NOT satisfy supplemental jurisdiction.
-(2) unrelated additional claims asserted by Plaintiff (P1) OR 3rd party P (D1/P2) against the 3rd
party Defendant (D2)
-[Maybe only if the original P does not first assert a claim relating from original action?]
-(3)(e) How long does the original defendant have to implead?
-the original defendant can assert a claim against a 3rd party defendant:
-(1) without permission of the court; and
-must be made within 14 days of its answer
-(2) with permission of the court [must ask]
-Generally denied IF the inclusion of 3rd party defendant would result in:
-(1) undue delay to the Plaintiff; or
-(2) prejudice to the Plaintiff
-(3)(f) Can 3rd party Defendants (D2) assert claims?
-May assert counterclaims against the party impleading it (original D/3rd party P)
-May assert crossclaims against other 3rd party Defendants [if theres more than 1?]
-May assert ANY claim against the original Plaintiff (P1) if it arises from same T&C of the
original action against the original defendant (P1D1 claim)
-(3)(g)What happens if original P (P1) brings a claim against 3rd Party D(D2)?
-if this occurs, the 3rd party Defendant (D2) and original Plaintiff (P1) essentially become
opposing parties under Rule 13.
-As such, 3rd party Defendant (D2) would have to bring any compulsory counterclaims
it has against the original plaintiff (P1) or else they are waived.
-Conversely, if the 3rd party Defendant (D2) asserts a claim against original Plaintiff (P1), the
original plaintiff (P1), under rule 13, must bring any compulsory counterclaims against the 3rd
party Defendant (D2) or else waive them.
-SMJ is still an independent requirement which must be satisfied under these circumstances.
-(4) Intervention [Rule 24]
-Involves nonparties intervening in an action and making themselves parties.
-Two types of intervention under Rule 24:
-(1) intervention of right; and
-(2) permissive invervantion
-Rule 24(a)(2)  a nonparty has a right to intervene in an action when:
-(1) it claims an interest in the subject of the action;
-(2) the nonparty is such that disposition of the action would impair its ability to protect
that interest; and
-(3) the nonparty’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties in the
action.
-(4)(a) How can a nonparty demonstrate inadequate representation?
-A nonparty may demonstrate the existing parties cannot adequately represent its interest by showing,
for example, that
-(1)the existing parties have conflicting interests; or
-(2) the nonparty & existing parties interests diverge in some way.
-However, if there is an existing party who has a similar stake in the outcome as the nonparty,
and the existing party is not in collusion with the other existing party, then the nonparty’s
right to intervene will generally be denied.
-(4)(b) If the nonparty is allowed in, what do they become?
-If the nonparty is allowed in  they become either (1) co-plaintiff; or (2) co-defendant
-this depends on the purpose of the intervention.
-(4)(c) When or at what time can intervention occur?
-Rule 24(a) also requires a timely application to intervene.
-there is no fixed time limit for seeking intervention, and can be done at any time
-However, the timeliness is an equitable concept that is assessed with reference to whether:
-(1) the parties and the court will suffer from the fact the application did not come earlier;
and
-(2) the nonparty can be faulted for seeking to intervene at a late stage.
-(4)(d) Permissive Intervention [Rule 24(b)]
-Intervention may be permitted (if timely) when the nonparty’s claim or defense shares a question
of law or fact with the main action
-courts balance interest in efficient resolution against complexity and costs that might arise
from adding the nonparty
-(4)(d) Intervention is subject to jurisdictional requirements
-Intervention must independently qualify for SMJ and venue requirements.
-If there is no independent basis for SMJ, supplemental jurisdiction can be used unless
the action is a diversity-only action for state-law claims asserted by the party seeking
to intervene.
Question for Lund  to impleading to be satisfied, does the 3rd party defendant need to be diverse from
all the parties (i.e. diverse from both the original defendant and original plaintiff) or does the 3 rd party
defendant only need to be diverse in respect to the original defendant (i.e. 3rd party diverse is
diverse from original defendant but is not diverse from the original defendant)?
Preclusion (Claim & Issue)
Preclusion Overview
-The question raised by claim preclusion is: does the judgement in case 1 preclude the parties from
litigating anything in case 2.
-Two ways this can happen:
-(1) claim preclusion (res judicata)
-(2) issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)
Claim Preclusion
-Establishes that a P can only sue D once to vindicate a “claim”(cause of action)
-P only gets one lawsuit per claim, so P must be careful to seek all rights to relief that are
encompassed in that claim in one case.
-If P sues D twice on the same claim, claim preclusion will result in the dismissal of case 2.
-Claim preclusion must be raised by defendant as an affirmative defense
-if D does not, D loses it
Issue Preclusion
-Much narrower  it precludes re-litigation of a particular issue that was actually litigated and
decided in case 1.
-It narrows the scope of case 2 by deeming established in case 2 an issue the parties litigated in
case 1
-Where claim preclusion dismisses a case, issue preclusion may allow case 2 to proceed, but
streamlined because the previously determined issues of fact will be deemed established for
the purposes of case 2.
-thus, it always makes sense to start with claim preclusion to dismiss fully, then if it does
not apply, use issue preclusion to at least limit the scope.
Claim Preclusion
Requirements for Claim Preclusion
-(1) must have been a final judgement
-(2) judgement must have been on the merits
-(3) both cases must involve the same claim; and
-(4) both cases must involve the same parties or persons in privity
How is “same claim” defined? [Transactional Test]
-Courts differ, but the broadest test  “transactional test”
-Under Transactional test, later claims are effectively extinguished when they arise out of the
same “transaction” or series of connected transactions” out of which the initial claim arose
-This test compares the factual circumstances giving rise to the claims
Other, Older Approaches to “same claim”
-(1) Same evidence” approach
-whether the evidence necessary to sustain a second verdict would also sustain the first
-A difficulty in this test is the decision of how much overlap is necessary before we say
it’s the same claim
-doesn’t have to be a complete overlap  just determining how much
-typically focus on the elements each of the 2 cases require
The “same party” restriction
-Generally, claim preclusion binds only people who were actually parties to the previous suit
-easier to say same claimant
-ex: A and B involved in car crash. A sues B and wins. B then sues A  no preclusion
-(1) While they are the same parties, they are different claimants
-however, it would be dismissed (in most juris) on the compulsory counterclaim
rule, because B would have failed to raise it in claim 1.
-(2) if B instead files a compulsory counterclaim in case 1, he effectively becomes a
claimant, so if he sues A in case 2  he is precluded.
-Legal system views separate persons as holding legally separate claims, no matter how closely
those people are to eachother.
-One narrow historical exception  a person who is in privity with a party to the original
action
-Traditional view  someone is in privity only when his interest is truly mutual or
successive
“Final Judgement”
-Final judgement must have actually been entered in the first case for it to apply
-Final judgement in this context means a TC’s judgement is final for claim preclusion purposes,
even though an appeal of that judgement is planned or pending.
“On the merits”
-Key question is  did the P have the opportunity to be heard on the substance of his claim in the
first case.
-It does not mean that there must have been an actual trial on the merits
-(1) directed verdict?  yes; P had opportunity to make her case & failed to do so
-(2) summary judgement?  yes; P had opportunity to come forward with evidence
-(3) dismissal for lack of SMJ/PJ/Venue?  no
-(4) default judgement?  yes; D had opportunity to appear, make argument, present evidence
-(5) dismissal on 12(b)(6)  if without prejudice then no. if with prejudice, then yes
-(6) dismissal for failure to prosecute, discovery abuse, comply w/ court order?
-see 41(b)
Important notes about claim preclusion
-(1) Determining whether it applies or not is examined under the law of the jurisdiction where the
first judgement was rendered  because of full faith & credit clause
-(2) for claim preclusion to apply, it doesn’t matter who won the case  what matters is whether the
judgement was on the merits
-(3) Preclusion also applies to both defenses and counterclaims
-matters that could have been raised as a defense in suit 1 cannot be raised as the basis for
a claim in suit 2
-A party is precluded from raising any compulsory counterclaims he could have raised
in the first case but didn’t
-(4) claim preclusion will not apply if the court rendering the first jdugement did not have
jurisdiction over the claim (i.e. lack of PJ/SMJ)
-(5) claim preclusion will not apply if the claim did not exist at the time the first judgement was
entered (??)
Issue Preclusion
Requirements for Issue Preclusion
-(1) the same issue of law or fact;
-usually a question of fact (can be both) but has to be exactly the same issue
-(2) was actually litigated and determined;
-(3) be a valid and final judgement
-(4) the determination was essential to the judgement
-(5) the same parties are involved
The “Same issue” Requirement
-the issue involved in case 2 must be exactly the same issue as litigated in case 1.
-Ex: State of SC prosecutes on Criminal charge for destruction of property. D is acquitted. State then
brings a civil suit against D, alleging destruction of same property.
-issue preclusion probably/certainly would not apply  criminal burden is much higher
than civil  not same issue
-however, if the govt succeeded in the first case  it would be precluded because if
they satisfied the higher burden, then they could satisfy the lower civil burden.
The “actually litigated and determined” requirement
-Issue preclusion is not based on whether the party had the opportunity  issue preclusion can
apply only if the particular issue was actually litigated & decided.
-Example: B sues RR for negligence in personal injury. J joined with and sued in negligence
for loss of B’s services & consortium (not his own injuries). RR raised a contributory
negligence defense to J’s claim. Final verdict B but general verdict for RR on J’s claim.
-J sues RR in 2nd case, this time for his own injuries. RR raises contrib. negligence again to
his claim.
-RR cant successfully raise issue preclusion to the contrib. negligence? Because it
was litigated in the first case, but because it was a general verdict the court cant
tell why the jury ruled against J. (it was litigated but not determined)
-Issue preclusion was applied to the issue of the RR’s negligence.
-we know for sure the jury determined the issue against RR in suit 1 in their
finding for B  thus, RR was precluded from re-litigating that issue (denying
negligence) and remaining issues = causation/damages & J’s negligence.
The “essential to judgment” Requirement
-The determination of the issue must be essential to the judgement.
-If a jury has 2 reasons for its verdict, either one of which would independently lead the jury to the
verdict, are either of those reasons essential?
-Two views are taken when there are alternative grounds to support a decision:
-(1) RST 2nd
-where the are alternative grounds for the decision in the first case (both of which
would independently support the result) then neither determination will be given
preclusive effect
-Rationale  if theres more than 1 basis then it may not have been given full and
careful consideration to each one.
-(2) other view [tf does this mean]
-gives issue preclusion to both alternative determinations
-Rationale  we cant say that either was more or less necessary
Mutuality – By whom issue preclusion may be asserted
-Mutuality is relevant to the determination of who may assert issue preclusion.
-(1) Traditional Rule
-a person who wasn’t party to the first action cannot use issue preclusion in his favor
because preclusion could not be used against him
-(2) DNIP – Blonder Tongue Lab [defensive nonmutual issue preclusion]
-A new D (not party to 1st case) can use issue preclusion to prevent P from re-litigating
-Rationale  P had full & fair opportunity to litigate the issue in 1st case and every
incentive to do so vigorously  should not get multiple chances to litigate a fruitless
issue
-If the preclusion is used against a party that had full & fair opportunity to litigate the issue
in a case  preclusion can be used defensively by a nonmutual party
-(3) ONIP –
-“offensive” means that the person using preclusion is a claimant
- whether to allow ONIP is discretionary, based on several factors
-(1) could P have easily joined the 1st action? (is he trying to freeload?)
-(2) did the D have incentive to litigate in the 1st action fully & vigorously?
(seriousness of allegations & foreseeability of future suits
-(3) are there any new & significant procedural opportunities available to D in
2nd suit?
-(4) are there any inconsistent prior claims?
Rules Section For Essay
Rules for Claim Joinder [Basic/Foundation of Joinder Essay]
Under Rule 18, a party asserting a claim may join as many claims of any kind,
related or unrelated, as the party has against the opposing party. This applies to
making claims, counterclaims, cross claims, or 3rd party claims. Rule 18 requires no
factual or legal relationship between claims – a claimant can joing as many related
or unrelated claims as he has against an opposing party, however the court has
discretion under Rule 42(b) to separate trial of any claim or issue for convenience, to
avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize. Furthermore, a court may decide
claims joined under Rule 18 only if the joined claims independently satisfy the
subject matter jurisdiction and venue requirements. If the claims are not subject to
original jurisdiction (FQJ or Diversity), 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) allows for the potential
joinder of claims instead. For supplemental jurisdiction to exist, there must be at
least one claim that properly falls within the court’s original jurisdiction, and all of
the claims taken together must form a single case or controversy. In order to
determine this, courts use the gibbs test or common nucleus of operative fact test.
However, under 1367(c), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction in any of four circumstances: (1) if the claim raises a novel or complex
issue of state law; (2) when the state law claim substantially predominates over the
claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) when the
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; and (4)
if in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction. Under Rule 18, the joining of an unrelated claim is discretionary.
While subject to certain conditions in different scenarios, generally a party that fails
to join unrelated claims is free to raise them later on without losing them. However,
when dealing with closely related claims, they may have to be raised due to the risk
of claim preclusion.
Rules for Counterclaims
A counter claim is one made by a defending party against the party that asserts a
claim against them. To illustrate, if a Plaintiff brings a claim against a Defendant
and the Defendant has a claim he could bring against that very Plaintiff, this would
be considered a counterclaim. Under Rule 13, there are two types of counterclaims:
(1) compulsory; or (2) permissive. According to Rule 13(a), a compulsory
counterclaim is one that a defendant has against the plaintiff which arises out of
the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim.
A defendant asserting a counterclaim must assert them, assuming they satisfy the
jurisdictional rules, because failure to assert them results in the defending party
waiving his right and is barred from asserting it against the Plaintiff later on. On
the other hand, under Rule 13(b), permissive counterclaims are simply claims the
defendant may have against the opponent that do not arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence of the plaintiff’s claim. As such, the defendant can raise
these claims, if he wants to and they satisfy jurisdictional requirements, but he does
not have to nor does he risk losing future assertion. Additionally, there is no
limitation on the number or type of counterclaims a party can bring under Rule 13,
however they must still satisfy the jurisdictional and venue requirements. Due to
the nature of compulsory counterclaims – arising out of the same transaction or
occurrence of the claim asserted by the opposing party – compulsory counterclaims
will typically have supplemental jurisdiction in the event the claims fail the other
jurisdictional requirements. As such, permissive counterclaims are less likely to
satisfy supplemental jurisdiction. [Potentially insert the “logical-relationship test?]
Further, under rule 13(h), a party who makes a counterclaim may join additional
counterclaim defendants, but is not required to.
Rules for Crossclaims
A cross claim is one brought by one co-party against another co-party who has not
claimed against you. Under rule 13(g), crossclaims are entirely permissive and can
be deemed proper in three ways: (1) if they arise out of the same transaction and
occurrence that is the subject matter the original action or of a counterclaim that
has been asserted; (2) if they assert contingent or derivative liability based on
claims against the crossclaimant; or (3) if it states a claim relating to any property
that is the subject matter of the original action. Because crossclaims are typically
related to the claims which the court has subject matter jurisdiction, crossclaims
are similar to counterclaims in the sense that they will generally satisfy
supplemental jurisdiction if nothing else. Generally, crossclaims are more
permissive and do not have to be asserted in fear of losing future ability to assert
them, however there is one notable exception. If a co-party brings a crossclaim
against you, then you must assert all transactionally related claims as compulsory
counterclaims or they will be waived. Because the transactionally related claims
must be asserted as compulsory counterclaims, this also satisfies the requirement to
bring permissive counterclaims via rule 13(b)
Joinder of Party Rules
Joinder of Plaintiffs
Under Rule 20(a)(1), persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if (a) they assert any right to relief
jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (b) any question of law or fact common to all
plaintiff’s will arise in the action. Rule 20 is entirely permissive, meaning that plaintiffs with related
claims do not have to join together.
Joinder of Defendants
Under rule 20(a)(2), persons may be joined in one action as defendants if (a) any right to relief is
asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurences; and (b) any question of law or
fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
It is entirely possible that multiple plaintiffs sue multiple defendants through a combination of Rule
20(a)(1) and 20(a)(2).
Rules for Compulsory Joinder of Parties
Rule 19 describes situations where the joinder of parties is compulsory or must
occur. A rule 19 issue can be raised by filing a rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss or by
raising the defense in its answer. This rule is typically used by defendants as a way
to say the plaintiff did not join someone who needed to be joined. Rule 19 includes a
two-step analysis found in 19(a) and 19(b). Rule 19(a) determines whether the
absent person should be joined, if feasible. Within this analysis, three questions
must be answered, and joinder is compulsory if there is an affirmative answer to
any one of the three – classifying the party as a necessary party. The analysis under
19(a) includes: (1) if the absent person is not joined, will this prevent complete relief
from being given to the existing parties; (2) will judgement in the absence of the
absent party impair the absent party’s interest in the subject matter of the action;
and (3) will the existing parties be subject to substantial risk of incurring double,
multiple, or inconsistent obligations in separate suits if the absent party remains
absent. Upon deciding whether a party should be joined, an intermediate
determination to be made is whether it would be feasible to make them a party.
There are three scenarios in which joinder of a necessary party would prove to be
infeasible: (1) if joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction (typically through
destruction of complete diversity citizenship); (2) if the court would not have proper
personal jurisdiction over the necessary party; or (3) if joining the necessary party
would create venue issues. The second step of the analysis addresses what to do
where it is infeasible to join a necessary party. Rule 19(b) asks the question whether
in equity and good conscience the absent party’s presence is so important that the
action sould be dismissed if the person cannot be joined. If the answer to the
question is yes, the absent person is labeled as an indispensable party. Upon
making this determination, the court examines four factors: (1) the extent to which
a judgement rendered in the necessary party’s absence might be prejudicial to that
person or to the existing parties; (2) the extent to which prejudice can be avoided by
protective provisions in the judgement by shaping relief or other measures, (3)
whether judgement rendered in the necessary party’s absence would be adequate;
and (4) whether the plaintiff will receive an adequate remedy if the action is
dismissed for nonjoinder. Typically, courts are reluctant to dismiss and deem a
party so indispensable.
Rules for Intervention
Under Rule 24, a non-party may force its way into a lawsuit as either a plaintiff or
defendant. This is known as the “party crasher” rule. There are two types of
intervention (1) intervention as of right; and (2) permissive intervention. Under
Rule 24(a)(2) a party has a right to intervene when: (1) it claims an interest in the
subject of the action; (2) the nonparty is such that disposition of the action
would impair its ability to protect that interest; and (3) the nonparty’s interest
is not adequately represented by the existing parties in the action.
In determining whether the nonparty’s interest would not be adequately
represented, the court considers whether (1) the existing parties have conflicting
interests, or (2) the nonparty and existing party’s interests diverge in some way.
However, if there is an existing party that does have a similar stake in the outcome
as the nonparty, and the existing party is not in collusion with the other existing
party, then the nonparty’s right to intervene will generally be denied. However, a
non-party that may not satisfy the requirements under rule 24(a) for intervention
as of right can still be allowed to intervene under the courts discretion through rule
24(b)
Rules for 3rd party Practice/Impleader
Rule 14 may allow a defending party to assert claim against someone who up, until
the claim,was not party to the case. Rule 14 has both restrictive and liberal
qualities. It is liberal in that it potentially allows any defending party to make a
third party claim, which can even include the original plaintiff if the plaintiff is
defendant to a counter claim (under rule 14(b)). However, it is more restrictive than
other joinder rules in terms of the types of claims that may be made against a third
party defendant. Under Rule 14(a)(1), a third party defendant must be someone who
is or may be liable to the original defendant (third party plaintiff) for all or part of
the claim against it. Proper use of rule 14 serves to effectively say “if I am liable to
the plaintiff, then this 3rd party defendant is wholly or partly liable to me”; it does
not serve to be used make some other sort of claim or say the plaintiff sued the
wrong defendant. Third party claims are a way of sharing liability, and the type of
claims that typically meet this “proper” test are (1) contribution, (2)
indemnification, or (3) subrogation.
Joinder of parties requires independent basis for jurisdiction, however if the basis of
original jurisdiction fails it may be aided by 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) which states “such
supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or
intervention of additional parties” However, supplemental jurisdiction will not
apply in every scenario. 1367(b) provides a limitation on the use of supplemental
jurisdiction in diversity cases, stating “if any action which courts have original
jurisdiction founded solely on diversity, the courts shall not have supplemental
jurisdiction under 1367(a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties
under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24.
Relevant Rules
Rule 18 – basic claim joinder
Rule 13 – counter claims & cross claims
Rule 20 – Permissive party joinder
Rule 19 – Compulsory Party Joinder
Rule 14 – 3rd party claims
Rule 22 – interpleader [all D claimants must satisfy (1) SMJ & (2) PJ]
Rule 19 – Required (compulsory) Joinder of Parties
-(a) Persons Required to be Joined if Feasible
-(1) Required Party
-a person subject to service of process and whose joinder will not
deprive court of SMJ must be joined as a party if:
-(a) in that person’s absence the court cannot provide complete
relief among existing parties; or
-(b) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the
action and the outcome of the action in their absence may:
-(i) impair or impede that person’s ability to protect
the interest; or
-(ii) leave an existing party subject to double, multiple,
or inconsistent oblitations because of the interest
-(2) Joinder by Court order
-if a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that
the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join the as a
plaintiff may be made either (1) a defendant; or (2) involuntary
plaintiff.
-(3) Venue
-if a joined party objects to venue and the joining of that party would
make venue improper, the court must dismiss that party
Rule 19 – Required (compulsory) Joinder of Parites [Outline]
-(a) Persons required to be joined if feasible
-(1) Required party
-(a) absence is such that complete relief for existing parties is
unattainable
-(b) necessary party claims an interst in subject of action and the
outcome of the action in their absence:
-(ii) impairs or impedes ability to protect the interest; or
-(ii) existing party will be subject to multiple or inconsistent
obligations
-(2) Joinder by Court order
-court must order joinder of party if they have not been joined. If
party refuses joinder as plaintiff, they are joined as (1) defendant
or (2) involuntary plaintiff
-(3) Venue
-party must be dismissed if joinder would make venue improper