Complex Litigation Outline

Complex Litigation

Spring 2011

• Permissive Joinder

  • Rule 20(a):

    • (1) Plaintiff’s can be joined when they assert a right to relief that

      • Arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; AND

      • Any common question (CQ) of law OR fact exists as to all plaintiffs

    • (2) Defendants may be joined when a right to relief is asserted against them that

      • Jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transaction or occurrences; AND

      • Any common question of law or fact to all defendants will arise in the action.

  • Purpose:

    • Promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of disputes.

    • Pooling of plaintiff resources

    • Promote efficiency in system

    • However, defendants don’t like it because they want to divide and conquer.

      • Courts given great discretion here.

  • Use balancing test:

    • Efficiency concern of joinder must be balanced with prejudice to client.

  • GM v. Mosley: “Logical Relationship”

    • Same transaction means any transaction or occurrence that bears a logical relationship is a “same transaction.” (Looked at FRCP 13)

  • Problems:

    • Relationship v. discreet fact patterns for each plaintiff

  • Analysis on exam: should be joined as a π/Δ because under rule 20(a) their right to relief/the right to relief against them 1) arises out of a common transaction, occurrence, or series (“logical relationship”) and 2) involves CQ of law or fact because .

    • Joinder would be preferable because it would promote judicial efficiency by avoiding the redundancy of litigating the following issue(s) of law or fact.

• Compulsory Joinder

  • Rule 19(a): Necessary Party

    • Can we join them: “Feasibility”

      • Subject to service of process, AND

      • Not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, AND

        • SMJ, Venue, PJ, # of parties.

    • Do we need this party?

      • Complete relief could not be had without them; or

      • In their absence, their ability to protect their interest may as a practical matter be impaired or impeded; or

      • In their absence, an existing party may incur a substantial risk of inconsistent obligations because of that interest.

  • Rule 19(b): Indispensible Party

    • Deciding if the necessary party is also indispensible:

      • If indispensible and can’t be joined, case dismissed.

    • Flexible Test: “Equity and good Conscience”

      • Extent to which the person or existing parties are prejudiced by that person’s absence.

      • Extent to which the prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:

        • Protective provisions in judgment

        • Shaping the relief

        • Other measures

      • Whether an adequate judgment can be rendered in that party’s absence.

      • Whether plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if action were dismissed.

  • Eldredge: “Feasibility”

    • Whether you can grant complete relief to all existing parties, not for all possible parties.

    • 4,500 possible defendants, not feasible to join all.

    • Holding: joinder not necessary and intervention can solve all problems.

  • Shimkus:

    • Blacks wanting preferential treatment in housing

    • White housing determined to be necessary because

      • Complete relief could not be granted

      • Impair whites interests

      • Inconsistent obligations confusing defendants

• Intervention:

  • Provides a way for an outsider to voluntarily get into the suit they feel they have an interest in. “3^rd party asserting their right to be involved.”

  • Rule 24(a): “Intervention of Right”

    • Party has an unconditional right to intervene by federal statute; OR

    • Party has:

      • Recognized interest in subject matter of case,

      • Interest might be impaired by disposition of suit, and

      • Interest not adequately represented by existing parties.

  • Rule 24(b): “Permissive Intervention”

    • Timely motion that asserts a:

      • Conditional right to intervene conferred by federal statute; or

      • Claim or defense that shares a common question of law OR fact with main action.

        • Add notes.

    • Undue Delay or Prejudice would result by permitting intervention:

      • Time intervenor knew or should’ve known of its interest in case

      • Prejudice to existing parties from delay in seeking intervention

      • Prejudice to intervenor if intervention is denied

      • Unusual circumstances militating for or against a finding of timeliness.

    • PJ and SMJ is still required for court to permit intervention.

  • Purpose: “Economy and efficiency”

    • Merges additional issues related to the original case into one suit, avoiding multiple trials.

  • Recognized interests:

    • Economic injury: decline in property values

    • Non-economic injury: intangible, “quality of life”

  • Not a recognized interest:

    • Defending one’s beliefs or wishes

    • Keeping your information out of IRS control.

  • Adequate Representation Issue:

    • Same interests = probably adequate.

      • Court doesn’t have to admit.

    • Not same interests = probably not adequate

      • Court would likely have to admit.

  • Consequences not as severe as rule 19

    • No dismissal

    • Intervention is never compulsory.

  • Standing for Intervention

    • Split courts as to whether need Art. III standing (case or controversy).

    • Intervenor CANNOT continue case without Art. III standing if original plaintiff settles out.

    • Cannot appeal an adverse judgment without Art. III standing.

• Joinder Summary:

  • Joinder of claims: 18(a) = liberal for efficiency

    • FRCP 1367: supplemental jurisdiction for new claims

      • (a) Can bring in new claims if from “same case or controversy under Art. III”

      • (b) Original plaintiffs cannot assert new claims against new parties brought in under joinder or intervention.

  • Standard of appeal: abuse of discretion

  • 17(a): “real party in interest”

    • If a real party in interest doesn’t timely join suit, then any judgment will have res judicata effect on them.

  • All decisions under Joinder and Intervention can always be changed later on as the case develops and new facts arise.

  • Animal Protection Case:

    • Standing relaxed for public interest cases.

    • Argued that interests are narrower than original parties, so should have a right to intervene because interests would not be adequately...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Complex Litigation Outlines.