Week of 1/24: 770-91; 792-98


Compulsory joinder: Rule 19 (brings a person in who does not want to be there)
o Temple v. Synthes
 π sued medical company for faulty implant in federal court based
on diversity jurisdiction; sued doctor and hospital separately in
state court
 ∆ filed motion to dismiss since the doctor wasn’t joined under Rule
19
 Focus of rule 19: interest of courts and public in complete,
consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies
 Case dismissed at district court for not joining doctor; court of
appeals affirmed
 S.C. held that the doctor and hospital were merely permissive
parties to be joined, not compulsory; error for them to be required
to be joined and subsequently for the suit to be dismissed with
prejudice.
o Helzberg’s Diamond Shops v. Valley West Des Moines Shopping Center
 π filed for an injunction in federal court based on diversity
jurisdiction to force ∆ to follow the lease and not allow more than
the allotted number of competing jewelry stores in the mall
 DC grants injunction and says that Rule 19 doesn’t apply to the
other jewelry store who may move in
 Lord’s would have had to be joined if it was subject to
jurisdiction, but because they weren’t subject to PJ in that district,
court had to see if they were an indispensible party to the suit;
since they weren’t, they could proceed as filed – CoA agrees.
 Lord’s had an opportunity to intervene in this suit and they chose
not to, so that’s on them if it later turns out harmful.
Intervention: Rule 24 (brings a person in who wants to be there, but no one else
wants)
o Rule 24(a) – intervention of right is designed to give those with strong
interests in the litigation the power to insist on joinder
o (b) – permissive intervention is designed to capture those with weaker
bases for insisting on joinder
o Four requirements for intervention
 Intervention must be timely
 Must have an interest in the property or transaction that is subject
of the suit
 That interest must be in some strong way at risk
 Even if an applicant meets these requirements they will be denied
intervention if those already in the lawsuit are adequately
representing the interests.
o Natural Resources Defense Counsel v. US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission

American Mining Congress and Kerr-McGee seek to intervene in
suit regarding a prohibition of agencies from issuing licenses for
the operation of uranium mills in NM without first preparing
environmental impact statements; these two are potential recipients
of the licenses
 One other corp was undisputedly added to the suit; then five more
filed motions to intervene but denied on the basis that their
interests would be protected by the other company already joined
 Looking at the requirements:
 Time isn’t an issue
 Court says that there is an interest for the two companies in
that if the case was decided for π then there would be a
profound impact upon them
 Court may consider any significant legal effect in the
applicant’s interest and it is not restricted to a rigid res
judicta test, and the effect would be enough to satisfy the
impairment criteria
 If an applicant’s interest is similar to, but not identical with,
that of one of the parties, a discriminating judgment is
required on the circumstances of the particular case, but he
ordinarily should be allowed to intervene unless it is clear
that the party will provide adequate representation for the
absentee
o The companies are different in that the original one
already joined has its license while these applicants
don’t; could be enough of a difference so let them
on the case.
o Martin v. Wilks
 Birmingham was discriminating in hiring firefighters; decrees were
agreed upon by black firefighters and the city and the board,
separately, to work the issues out. White firefighters sought to be
joined before the decrees were issued but the complaints were
ruled untimely. Then they sought an injunction against
enforcement of the decrees saying they’re being discriminated by
these decrees. District court denied relief.
 ∆ then filed suit saying they were being discriminated; π joined as
defendants with the city and board to defend the decrees
 District court granted a motion to dismiss; 11th circuit reversed,
because Wilks weren’t arties to the consent decrees and their
claims of unlawful discrimination are not precluded; affirmed by
SC.
 “One is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in
which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been
made a party by service of process.”
 A party seeking a judgment binding on another cannot obligate that
person to intervene; he must be joined
