Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Multi Party And Multi Claim Litigation Outline

Law Outlines > Civil Procedure II Outlines

This is an extract of our Multi Party And Multi Claim Litigation document, which we sell as part of our Civil Procedure II Outlines collection written by the top tier of Thomas Jefferson School Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Procedure II Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:



COUNTERCLAIMS o Claim by a D against a P o Permissive Counterclaim - Rule 13(b)
? Any D may bring against any P:

* Any claim not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim o Compulsory Counterclaim (Required) - Rule 13(a)
? Claim does arise under same T/O that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim
? Pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that:

* At the time of its service, the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim: o Arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; AND o Does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.Failure to state compulsory counterclaim:

* If D does not assert CC - they lose that claim in any future litigationExceptions:

* Counterclaim is not compulsory if: o When the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action o Claims by D which for just adjudication require the presence of additional parties of whom the court cannot get PJ o Claims by D in which the suit against D is in rem or quasi in rem
? Assuming D is not making any other counterclaim in the action

o Claims by 3rd Parties
? Counterclaim may be made by any party against any opposing party
? By 3rd Party D

* May CC against either original D or against original P
? By P

*If D has CC against P, P may then assert CC against D even though P has already asserted "regular" claims against D

* P's CC will be compulsory if it relates to the same subject matter as D's CC New Parties

* New parties to a CC may be brought into a suit

o Subject Matter Jurisdiction
? Permissive

* Probably not w/in court's supplemental jurisdiction

* Must therefore independently satisfy requirements of Federal SMJ*


* In a federal action is w/in federal court's supplemental jurisdiction

* Requires no independent SMJ jurisdictional grounds

JOINDER OF CLAIMS o Joinder of Claims - Rule 18 (a)
? Once a party has made a claim against some other party, they may then make any other claim they wish against that party

* Can be a counterclaim, cross claim, or third-party claim

* They may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party
? Never required - left at the claimant's option o SMJ Not Affected
? Supplemental jurisdiction probably does not apply to joinder of claims
? Requirements of SMJ must be independently satisfied by the joined claim
? Usually there will not be a SMJ problem

* Since diversity will not be affected, and since P may add all claims together for purposes of meeting the
$75,000 requirement


? Done at discretion of P'sPermissive Joinder of Plaintiffs - Rule 20 (a)(1)

* Multiple P's may voluntarily join together in an action if:

o Single Transaction or Occurrence
? Claims for relief must arise from single T/O o Common Questions
? Must be a question of law or fact common to all P's which will arise in the actionPermissive Joinder of Defendants - Rule 20 (a)(2)

* If one or more P's have a claim against multiple D's - these D's may be joined based on the same two tests (see above) o At P's Option
? Joinder of D's is at the option of the P'sJurisdiction in Permissive Joinder

* Joinder of multiple D's - requirements of PJ must be met w/regard to each D individually o Each D must be served personally o Each D must individually fall within PJ of court (minimum contacts) o Long arm statute must apply in diversity cases
? Federal ? - LAS doesn't matterSubject Matter Jurisdiction

* All parties (whether P or D) joined under Rule 20 must meet federal SMJ requirements



Supplemental Jurisdiction o Generally does not apply to joinder of multiple D's o Partially applies to joinder of multiple P's If action is brought as diversity action, diversity must be complete o No state may be represented on both sides of an action


Aggregation o Multiple P's are permitted to aggregate claims to meet amount o BUT - at least 1 P must meet the amount o Supp. Jurisdiction applies to this situation


Each D must meet: o Supp. Jur. does not apply even for amount in controversy purposes o Each D must have claims against him equal to jurisdictional amount

? Situations in which additional parties must be joined, assuming requirements of jurisdiction can be met
? 2 Categories of parties who must be joined where possible:Necessary Parties

* Less vital group consists of parties who: o Must be joined if it can be done; BUT o In whose absence because of jurisdictional problems the action will be permitted to go forward


Persons to be Joined if Feasible - Rule 19 (a)(1) o Party is necessary - must be joined if jurisdictionally possible (won't deprive court of SMJ) - if party is not "indispensible" and either of the following is met:
? Incomplete Relief

* In that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; OR
? Impaired Interest

* Absentee has an interest relating to the action

* Trying the case w/out the absentee will either: o Impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; OR o Leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest o Test to Determine Whether a Person is to be Joined if Feasible
? (1) Will the court be unable to give complete relief to the existing parties in the absence of the PJF? OR
? (2) Does the PJF have an interest in the lawsuit that s/he needs to protect by being a party to the lawsuit? OR
? (3) Will an existing party be prejudiced if the PJF is not made a party to the lawsuit?

*If the answer to 1, 2 OR 3 is YES, then the PJF must be joined, so long as the PJF is subject to personal jurisdiction where the case has been filed, and the addition of the person to the lawsuit will not destroy subject matter jurisdiction (only relevant in diversity cases).

Indispensable Parties

* If party meets the test for necessary, but the party's joinder is impossible b/c of jurisdictional problems: o Court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed


Factors Considered to Determine Whether Party is Indispensable - Rule 19(b) o Extent of prejudice to the absentee, or to those already parties, o Possibility of framing the judgment so as to mitigate (lessen/avoid) such prejudice by:
? protective provisions in the judgment;
? shaping the relief; OR
? other measures o The adequacy of a remedy that can be granted in the party's absence o Whether the P would have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed


Test for Determining Whether Party is Indispensable o When the person is a PJF, but cannot be joined because joinder would either destroy SMJ o Or because the court cannot assert PJ over the PJF o Court must decide whether the PJF is "indispensable"
? i.e., whether the court must dismiss the case
? To make this decision, the court considers:

* Extent to which the PJF and the existing parties would be prejudiced by the person's absence,

* Extent to which the court can minimize the prejudice through


*shaping the relief or other measures; Adequacy of the judgment, if the PJF is not joined; AND Whether the plaintiff can re-file the case elsewhere, if it is dismissed


* Where non-party is one who must be JIF, supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to overcome any jurisdictional problems

* If person who is sought to be joined as a D is not diverse with all P's, or if the claim against that wouldbe D does not meet the amount requirement in diversity case - joinder may not take place


INTERVENTION o Certain parties who are not initially part of a lawsuit may enter the suit on their own initiative o Intervention of Right - Rule 24(a)
? Stranger to an existing action may intervene as of right if all 3 tests are met
? Application must be timely and:

* Interest in Subject Matter o Must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action

* Impaired Interest o Resolution of the action may impair or impede their ability to protect that interest

* Inadequate Representation o Must show their interest is not adequately represented by existing parties
? Even if the outsider cannot meet one or more of the tests, they may automatically intervene if a federal statute gives them such a right

* U.S. may intervene in any action involving the constitutionally of an act of CongressJurisdiction

* Independent jurisdictional grounds are required for intervention of right in a diversity case

* Such intervention does not fall w/in court's supplemental jurisdiction

o Permissive Intervention - Rule 24(b)
? To seek permissive intervention
? Application must be timely AND

* Must have a claim or defense that involves -

* A question of law or fact in common w/the pending action
? Discretion of court to allow intervention (rarely reversed on appeal)

* Statute rule (above) appliesJurisdiction

* Permissive intervenor in a diversity case must independently meet federal SMJ o Example: must be diversity btwn. intervenor and all D's

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure II Outlines.