Joinder Outline

1. JOINDER

   1. Joining Claims Against Current Parties (Rule 18)

• A party may add any additional claims it has against the other party.

• The claims do not need to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.

• The court must have jurisdiction over the claims being joined.

  1. Counterclaims (Rule 13)

Counterclaims may be made by any party against any adverse party. The court must have SMJ to hear the claim.

1. Rule 13(b): Permissive Counterclaim

• A claim by Δ that does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as Π’s claim.

• This must have an independent jurisdictional basis to be heard in the same suit.

  1. Rule 13(a): Compulsory Counterclaim

• A claim by Δ that arises under the same transaction or occurrence as Π’s claim.

  • “Logical Relationship Test”: Do the claims arise from the same underlying set of facts, even if different facts are required to prove each? (POLICY: this helps to ensure the courts are used efficiently and minimizes duplication in discovery and burden on witnesses).

• A counterclaim must be raised in Δ’s response, unless:

  • Δ doesn’t file an answer;

  • The claim hadn’t arisen until after Δ filed his answer;

  • The claim requires the presence of 3^rd parties over whom the court lacks jurisdiction;

  • The claim is already being litigated.

• If a compulsory counterclaim is not brought, and none of the above exceptions applies, then it is barred in this action and precluded in any future action.

POLICY: 13(a) really modifies the substantive rights of the parties against the Rules Enabling Act. But it promotes efficiency by requiring parties to bring claims which are available to them in one action.

1. Rule 13(g): Crossclaims

• A party may file any claim against a co-party arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the complaint or counterclaim, or relating to property involved in the transaction.

• Given the STO requirement, federal courts usually are able to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over crossclaims.

• Crossclaims are always optional and are never required.

• Once a crossclaim is filed, the parties become adversaries and the responding party must file any compulsory counterclaims against the claimant.

  1. Permissive Joinder of New Parties (Rule 20)

** Remember: there must always be PJ and SMJ over joined parties and claims.

1. Joining as a Plaintiff

Πs may join together in an action if:

• Their claims arise out of STO.

• There is at least one common question of law or fact.

• In diversity suits, joining the additional party does not destroy complete diversity.

  1. Joining as a Defendant

Δs may be joined if:

• If:

  • (a) any relief is asserted against them jointly or severally; OR

  • (b) the claims against them arise out of STO; AND

  • (c) There is at least one common question of law or fact.

    1. Rule 21: Challenging Joinder of Parties

• A wrongly joined party can move for misjoinder.

• The court is free to add or drop a party from the action or sever any claim against a party.

• Misjoinder is not grounds for dismissing the action.

  1. Compulsory Joinder of New Parties (Rule 19)

     1. Rule 12(b)(7): Non-Joinder of an Indispensable Party as a Defense

Rule 19 acts as a defense; where an indispensable party is absent, Δ may move to dismiss under 12(b)(7).

2. Three-Part Test

• (1) Rule 19(a): Is the party a necessary party?

  • (a) The court can’t give complete relief unless a party is joined;

  • (b) The person has an interest relating to the subject matter of the case and hearing the action without them would either prevent them from protecting their interests or result in inconsistent obligations.

  • (c) Joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties.

• (2) May the party be joined? (SMJ and PJ?)

• (3) If the party can’t be joined, will the consequences warrant dismissal? (Rule 19(b))

  • Would the party not joined be prejudiced?

  • Can that prejudice be reduced by the court?

  • Will the judgment be adequate without the party?

  • Will Π have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for 12(b)(7)?

Necessary parties must be joined if feasible. If they refuse to be joined, they will be declared parties by the court and will be bound by the result. If an indispensable party can’t be joined, then the action must be dismissed.

1. Impleader (3^rd Party Complaints) (Rule 14)

• Impleader is when Δ brings suit against a 3^rd party as a result of the claim against Δ.

  • The 3^rd party must be liable for all or part of the claim against Δ.

  • The 3^rd party must file an answer just the same as any Δ.

  • The court must have PJ and SMJ (usually supplemental is fine because SCC)

• Δ may implead a party on its own within 14 days of serving his answer. Otherwise, he needs the court’s permission.

• Π may assert a claim against the 3^rd party so long as STO as Π’s original claim. No supplemental jurisdiction here…if the court lacks independent jurisdiction to hear Π’s suit against the 3^rd party, it is barred.

• Π may implead a 3^rd party if there is a counterclaim.

• The 3^rd party may assert counterclaims against the original Δ or against Π provided they arise out of STO.

• ** There must be an STO justification for all claims related to the 3^rd party.

  1. Severance and Consolidation of Claims (Rule 42)

     1. Rule 42(b): Severance

• Courts may sever claims…

  • When they become unduly complex or unmanageable; OR

  • If one claim will prejudice another.

    1. Rule 42(a): Consolidation

• Courts ay consolidate claims that involve a common question of law or fact.

• …but only if the actions are brought in the same court.

  1. Class Actions

     1. Generally

Class actions need court approval to proceed, and require special oversight to certify and settle.

Constitutional Limits

• To be bound by a decision in a class action, a party must:

  • (1) have been involved in the action; or

  • (2) have a legal relationship with someone in the prior case; or

  • (3) have been adequately represented by the class.

• If one of the above criteria isn’t met, the party cannot be bound by the result.

• The court does not need to have PJ over the absent members of the class (Phillips v....

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