Tuesday, Nov. 13
necessary parties
Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties
(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.
(1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of
process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subjectmatter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:
(A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord
complete relief among existing parties; or
(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of
the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the
person’s absence may:
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s
ability to protect the interest; or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of
incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations
because of the interest.
An African-Americans who had been
refused employment by a fire
department is suing the city for racial
discrimination in hiring. He is asking for
preferential treatment in hiring by the
fire department as a remedy for past
discrimination. Are other AfricanAmericans who have been refused
employment necessary parties?
In 1950, an African-American sues
City for racial segregation of a park
– are other African-Americans who
were discriminated against
necessary parties?
(b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person who is required to
be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine
whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should
proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The
factors for the court to consider include:
(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s
absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;
(2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or
avoided by:
(A) protective provisions in the judgment;
(B) shaping the relief; or
(C) other measures;
(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence
would be adequate; and
(4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the
action were dismissed for nonjoinder.
Rule 24. Intervention
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court
must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a
federal statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect
its interest, unless existing parties adequately
represent that interest.
African-Americans who have been refused
employment by a fire department are suing the city
for racial discrimination in hiring. They are asking for
preferential treatment in hiring by the fire
department as a remedy for past discrimination.
May the white firefighters (or white applicants to the
fire department) who would be affected by this
relief intervene of right?
Would there be any conditions on their
intervention?
P wants to build a dump in some
wetlands
The Army Corp of Engineers refuses
to issue a permit
P sues the Army Corp of Engineers
May people who live by the
wetlands intervene on the side of
the government?
(b) Permissive Intervention.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the
court may permit anyone to intervene
who:
(A) is given a conditional right to
intervene by a federal statute; or
(B) has a claim or defense that
shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact.
...
intersection between joinder rules
and
PJ and venue
causes of actions joined under 18(a)
by plaintiffs against defendants
each must satisfy venue statute and
there must be PJ over the
defendants for each
joinder of defendants under Rs 19 &
20
there must be PJ over each
defendant, the venue statute must
be satisfied with respect to all
defendants
compulsory counterclaims by
defendants against plaintiffs
PJ is considered satisfied (or
waived)
venue statute need not be satisfied
Permissive counterclaims by
defendants against plaintiffs
majority view is PJ is considered
satisfied (or waived)
majority view is venue statute
need not be satisfied
crossclaims between codefendants
or coplaintiffs
no extra PJ argument is needed
no extra venue argument is needed
third party complaints brought by
defendants
there must be PJ over the third
party defendant
venue statute need not be satisfied
Supplemental Jurisdiction
P (NY) sues D (NY) under fed securities
law in federal court
P joins under R 18(a) a state law fraud
claim against D
D impleads insurer I (NY) for state law
contract claim
D also brings compulsory counterclaim
for breach of contract (P didn’t pay all
the money he owes under the securities
contract)
P(NY)
federal
state law
state law
securities breach of contract
fraud
D(NY)
state law
Insurance contract
I(NY)
U.S. Const. Article III. Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority; . . . --to all Cases of admiralty and
maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the
United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between
two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of
another State;--between Citizens of different States,-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State, or the
Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
pendent jurisdiction
- generally applies to a plaintiff with an
action that has its own source of SMJ who
joins causes of action without their own
source of SMJ but that arise from a
common core of operative fact
Ancillary jurisdiction
- counterclaims, crossclaims,
impleaders that lack their own source of
federal SMJ but have a common core of
operative fact with the action that does
- also includes plaintiff’s
supplementary proceedings to effectuate
judgment in action that had SMJ
P (NY) sues D1 (NJ) for brawl
P joins D2 (NY) under R 20(a)
pendent jurisdiction?
28 U.S.C. § 1367. - Supplemental
jurisdiction
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or
as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute,
in any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have
supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that
are so related to claims in the action within such
original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
case or controversy under Article III of the United
States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction
shall include claims that involve the joinder or
intervention of additional parties.
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of
this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental
jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs
against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or
24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims
by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under
Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as
plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising
supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be
inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of
section 1332.
P(NY)
federal
state law
state law
securities breach of contract
fraud
D(NY)
state law
Insurance contract
I(NY)
What if the D is granted summary
judgment on the federal securities
action?
Must the court dismiss the state
common law fraud action?
What if the D gets the federal securities
action dismissed for failure to state a
claim?
(c) The district courts may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under
subsection (a) if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State
law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim
or claims over which the district court has original
jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other
compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
A (NY) sues B(NY) under fed securities laws
A joins state common law fraud claim against C
(NY), an auditor for B who was also responsible for
the fraud
A(NY)
federal 20(a) state
B(NY)
C(NY)
A (Cal.) sues E (Nev.) (B’s employer) under
state law for a battery committed by B (Cal.)
- E impleads B
- B then brings a suit against A on the harm
done to B in their fight
A(Cal.)
E(Nev.)
B(Cal.)
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of
this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental
jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs
against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or
24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims
by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under
Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as
plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising
supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be
inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of
section 1332.
A(Cal.)
E(Nev.)
B(Cal.)
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of
this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental
jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs
against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or
24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims
by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under
Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as
plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising
supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be
inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of
section 1332.