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?