Joinder of Parties Compulsory Joinder Part 2 19(a) (1) No Yes Yes Join Absentee 19(a) (2)(i) Yes Feasible to Join? No 19(a) (2)(ii) No Yes No 19(b) Dismiss Case Proceed w/o Absentee Standard: Rule 19(a)(1) • Insider cannot get meaningful relief • From another insider • Unless an outsider is joined Often a situation in which Courts sometimes consider substantive law forbids entering Courts consider the relief that the would of suits judgment against one party without belikelihood available to multiple a successful burdening system entering judgment against another. defendant asthe welljudicial as to the plaintiff Examples: Rule 19(a)(1) Suit v. David to assert lien against property held by David & Alice as tenants by the entirety. Suit v. US by one of two groups each of whom claims exclusive fishing rights without joining other claimant. Suit v. State Party challenging delegate selection rules since National Party convention decides who will be seated. Standard: Rule 19(a)(2)(i) • Outsider claims an interest • Proceeding without the outsider will • Impair outsider’s ability to protect or assert the outsider’s interest • As a practical matter Examples: Rule 19(a)(2)(i) Claimants to a limited common fund. Substantial risk of collateral estoppel against outsider. Despite Janney, many courts hold that sufficiently harmful persuasive effect on outsider is enough. Ex-husband in suit by ex-wife to have Army pay part of retirement to her. Adjoining Landowners sue Railroad for Injunction to Stop Operating Spur One Way of Looking at Janney under 19(a)(2)(i) • If S-N wins (not obligated to J), what effect on UW (outsider) in later suit • By Janney v. UW? • By UW v. S-N? • If S-N loses (is obligated to J), what effect on UW (outsider) in later suit • By S-N v. UW? • By Janney v. UW? Examples of Situations That Do Not Fall Under Rule 19(a)(2)(i) Joint Tortfeasors Alternative Tortfeasors Other Victims of Single Tort (but see limited fund situation) “Mere stare decisis effect” situations. Standard: Rule 19(a)(2)(ii) • Outsider claims an interest • Proceeding without the outsider will create • Substantial risk of exposing one of the insiders • To multiple inconsistent liability Often a situation in which two people want insider to do two different things and the insider could never be legally obligated to do both. Examples: Rule 19(a)(2)(ii) Suit by employee v. employer claiming that seniority agreement is invalid. Why would union be conditionally necessary under 19(a)(2)(ii)? Suit by named beneficiary of life insurance policy for policy proceeds despite allegations that beneficiary killed insured. Why would contingent beneficiary be conditionally necessary? Helzberg Case • H & SC enter into lease which limits # of “full-line” jewelry stores. • SC enters into new lease w/ Lords which may permit Lord’s to open a “full-line” jewelry store in the center. • H sues SC to enjoin SC from letting Lords open such a store. • H does not join Lords (no personal jurisdiction). • SC claims Lords must be joined. Helzberg Case Under Rule 19(a) Is Lords a Rule 19(a)(2)(i) party? Would have Why? What Lords happens to been SC if bound H winsby its Lords a multiple RLords 19(a)(2)(ii) party? Isn’t this liability? a Was judgment in the H v. SC case? suit and then also sues SC How is theLords, Helzberg case different Without can the court Why not? Isn’t itLords inconsistent liability? and wins? Is a 19(a)(1) party? from the life insurance case? grant complete relief among those already parties?? Rule 19(b) Factors: • How much prejudice to • Outsider Compare 19(a)(2)(i) • Insiders? Compare 19(a)(2)(ii) • Can prejudice be avoided by • The court’s own actions • Action by the person prejudiced? • How inadequate (hollow) will the judgment be? Compare 19(a)(1) • Is another forum available where all can be joined? Helzberg Case Under Rule 19(b) How much prejudice to Lords? Why don’t we much care about How much prejudice to SC? Could prejudice be avoided by Is there another(hollow) forum available How inadequate will the prejudice to SC? Lords or by the Court? where allbe? the parties could be judgment joined?