Week Nine Notes Pleading (Joinder of parties, FRCP 17- Permissive, Compulsory, Third Party, 28 U.S.C. 1335) PDF

Preview

Summary

Cromer-Young...

Description

B. Party Joinder  FRCP 20 (a): Permissive Joinder of Parties o Persons Who May Join or Be Joined  Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:  They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and  Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action  Persons-as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem-may be joined in one action as defendants if:  Any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and  Any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action  Extent of Relief. Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant need be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. The court may grant judgment to one or more plaintiffs according to their rights, and against one or more plaintiffs according to their rights, and against one or more defendants according to their liabilities  Third-Party Practice o Rule 20 enables plaintiffs to shape the litigation by determining whether to assert their claims along with others or to assert their claims against multiple defendants within a single action o Defendants are afforded the opportunity to join parties to the litigation through Rule 14, which provides for the joinder of and assertion of claims against nonparties o Rule 14(a)(1): Third-Party Practice  When a defending party may bring in a third party  (1) Timing of the summons and complaint. A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it. But the third-party complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer  P v. D v. TPD (Third-Party Defendant) o TPD creates a new adversarial relationship between it and the original defendant but is not opposed to the original plaintiff as a coparty with the original defendant  Compulsory Party Joinder o Rule 19(a) sets forth the criteria for determining whether a party is “needed for just adjudication” o FRCP 19(a): Required Joinder of Parties

Required Party: A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:  Person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties  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 o As a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest o Leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest  Joinder by Court order: If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff  Venue. If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court must dismiss that party o Rule 19(b) governs the determination of whether the action may proceed in the required party’s absence Points for Discussion o The Requirements of Rule 19(a)  Three ways that a nonparty can be deemed a required or “necessary” party under Rule 19(a)  Determining whether an absent party is a necessary party that should be joined if feasible is a difficult, fact-specific determination that will depend on the circumstances of each case  No precise formula for determining whether a particular nonparty must be joined under Rule 19(a)  The general policies of avoiding multiple litigation, providing the parties with complete and effective relief in a single action, and protecting the absent persons from the possible prejudicial effect of deciding the case without them o The standards are difficult to satisfy and narrowly interpreted generally speaking Rule 19(a)(1)(A): no complete relief in nonparty’s absence o When nonmonetary relief is at stake and any ensuing court order would be ineffective or incomplete unless certain nonparties were brought before the court as parties  Ex. Has been found to be satisfied in cases involving a dispute over rights to a piece of property when one of the owners of the property is not joined in the action 













o The existence of multiple parties who are jointly and severally liable to a plaintiff will not require that each by joined because a court may order any single party o Note that the existence of multiple parties who are jointly and severally liable to a plaintiff will not require that each be joined because a court may order any single party to pay the full monetary damages Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i): Absence will impair nonparty’s ability to protect its interests o It is not enough that an absent party have an interest in the action o Satisfying this provision requires “that some outcome of the federal case that is reasonably likely can preclude the absent party with respect to an issue material to the absent party’s rights or duties under standard principles governing the effect of prior judgments.” Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii): Existing party subject to risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations o Logically inconsistent or conflicting judgments are not the same thing as subjecting a party to a risk of “inconsistent obligations”  Inconsistent obligations occur when an existing party cannot comply with one court’s order without breaching the order of another court that pertains to the same incident Feasibility Under Rule 19(a) o Joinder of the party is feasible if: (1) the court is able to exercise personal jurisdiction over the party, (2) joinder would not undermine the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, and (3) the party to be joined makes no valid object to venue o The proper mechanism for challenging an opposing party’s failure to join a party under Rule 19  Either to move for the court to join the party under Rule 19 or to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a party under Rule 19  Rule 19(b) permits courts to dismiss actions where it is not feasible to join important necessary parties to the action FRCP 19(b) o 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  The extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties  The extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by  Protective provisions in the judgment  Shaping the relief  Other Measures  Whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate  Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder











A necessary party’s presence in an action is so important that the case must be dismissed in its absence based on a Rule 19(b) analysis, that party is referred to as an indispensable party

FRCP 24(a) o Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:  Is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or  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 Interpleader o Permits a party in possession of property that it does not claim to own-referred to as the stakeholder-to join all prospective claimants to the property-referred to as the stake-in a single action in which a court can conclusively resolve ownership of the property  Is a necessary device because otherwise a stakeholder facing multiple claimants could be sued by each claimant in separate actions, with the result that the stakeholder could be subjected to multiple and inconsistent liability (for example, each case could reach the result that a different claimant is entitled to the stake). Not Good! FRCP 22: Interpleader o (a) Grounds  (1) By a Plaintiff. Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead. Joinder for interpleader is proper even though  The claims of the several claimants, or the titles on which their claims depend, lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical  The plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants  (2) By a defendant. A defendant exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a crossclaim or counterclaim  Ordinary subject matter jurisdiction, venue, and personal jurisdiction restrictions apply, meaning that the stake in question would have to be worth more than $75,000 and the stakeholder would have to hail from a different state than each of the various claimants Statutory Interpleader (28 U.S.C. § 1335) o The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action of interpleader filed by any person, firm, or corporation, association, or society having in his or its custody or possession money or property of the value of $500 or more if  Two or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship as defined in subsection (a) or (d) of section 1332 of this title, are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property, and if

The plaintiff has deposited such money or property or has paid the amount or the loan or other value of such instrument or the amount due under such obligation into the registry of the court o Rule interpleader actions are subject to the general venue statute Rule Interpleader FRCP 22 Statutory Interpleader 28 U.S.C. 1335 Diversity Requirement Complete diversity between Minimal diversity among stakeholder and claimants adverse claimants Greater than $75,000 At least $500 Amount-in Controversy Requirement Personal Jurisdiction Governed by Rule 4(k) Nationwide Venue 28 U.S.C. 1391 Anywhere any claimant resides Enjoining Claimants Governed by the Anti28 U.S.C. § 2361 Injunction Act and Rule 65 

Barbri Notes  Every claim must have SMJ  Proper Parties o FRCP 20(a)  Who may be joined, not who must be joined?  Is a tool available to the PLAINTIFF  If you want to have multiple plaintiffs with multiple plaintiffs  3 guys in taxicab, gets into a wreck, all three can individually sue the taxicab. Could all three join together? Yes, they do not have to though!  20(a)(1)-because their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, (t/o) and one common question  20(a)(2)  P can sue Two D’s in one case because the claim arises from same T/O and one common question  Needs to invoke FQ or Diversity!  Necessary and Indispensable Parties o Rule 19  Absentee (A)  Non-Party A-(A) ^  Sometimes the court will reach up and grab the absentee into the case o Because the absentee is NECESSARY to be in the case, under the rule it is required, but it is still NECESSARY  Three Steps in Rule 19  1: Is A (absentee) necessary? o If it meets any of the tests if we meet in 19(a)(1)  Three Tests

Reflect three different policies Test 1: 19(a)(1)(a): Without A the court cannot accord complete relief-efficiency  ***Test 2: 19(a)(1)(b)(1): Absentee’s interest may be(POTENTIALLY) harmed if not joined, the focus is on test is on the absentee himself  Test 3: 19(a)(1)(b)(2): The absentees’ interest may subject the defense to multiple and inconsistent opinions  Joint tortfeasors are not necessary-Supreme Court  2: Is joinder feasible? Can we get you in? o Does bringing you mess up diversity jurisdiction,  3: Is joinder of A not feasible? Then do we dismiss? o Well the court must either proceed without A or dismiss the entire case: Those are the only options: Rule 19(b)  The courts need to apply the facts of the case  Normally won’t dismiss, unless there is a better court to deal with this  If the court decides to dismiss, we call it indispensable  Basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7)  Indispensable (only if court gets dismissed) gets slapped on at the end  1st necessary, then decide if feasible, afterwards decide if need to dismiss, then it becomes indispensable Claim Joinder by Plaintiff o What claims can a plaintiff assert in a case? o Rule 18(a): the plaintiff can assert any claims they have, does not have to be transactional/legally related. Totally okay  Remember: we have to look at whether there is SMJ  Can aggregate totally unrelated claims to get over threshold Claim Joinder by Defendant o Defendant can actually sue someone o Two claims  Counterclaim  13(a) and 13(b) o Is a claim against an OPPOSING PARTY, you are suing someone that sued you o When you answer you put the counterclaim in there o Compulsory Counterclaim 13(a)(1)  





Arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim  You must assert it in this case or else you waive the claim  Efficiency  If you do not assert it, and you try to assert this claim, it will be dismissed, you violated the compulsory counterclaim rule  THIS IS ONLY COMPULSORY CLAIM IN THE WORLD, IF YOU DON’T USE IT YOU LOSE IT o Permissive Counterclaim 13(a)  You may respond in the same case, or you can use it in a different claim o Remember we have to look at SMJ, look to see if it falls under diversity or FQ, or you going to try and get it through supplemental jurisdiction  Crossclaim (already in case)  A claim against a co-party, not an OPPOSING PARTY  It must arise from same transaction or occurrence as the underlying case  Rule 13(g)  You do not need to use the claim in this case, NO! There is no such thing as a compulsory crossclaim, you may assert it here, you may not  How did we get a third party? o Rule 20, P brings in the D’s, and one of the D’s has a claim against another D  1367(a) Gibbs: Common Nucleus of Fact  1367(b) applies only in diversity jurisdiction cases, therefore it would be taken away the crossclaim  Kills supplemental diversity jurisdiction, only by claims by the PLAINTIFF  Counterclaims and crossclaims are made by the DEFENDANT Impleader: Rule 14 o Third-Party Defendant o Letter I-Someone new o Defendant joins in a new party, Third party defendant (TPD) o TPD becomes liable to pay part of the tab to the Plaintiff, liable to the defendant or the plaintiff o Two ways  Indemnity or contribution owes me indemnity or owes me contribution  Either entirely: indemnity  Contribution: partial 





 Joint tortfeasor o The plaintiff can assert a claim against the TPD  14(a)(3) o 14(a)(2)(d): arises from say transaction/occurrence, they can file a claim (TPD) Rule 24: Intervention o Two kinds of intervention  Intervention of right  The intervenor which side to come in on, can come in as a Plaintiff to assert a claim against the defendant, or can come in as a Defendant, either way there is a claim  1. Intervention of Right under Rule 24(a)(2) o You have a right to intervene if your interest may be harmed if you do not joined o This can go back to Rule 19(a)(2): what the court can decide to bring you back-the absentee may be heard if she is not joined, that makes her necessary under test two, it also gives her the right to intervene, it is same test  Permissive intervention: you just have to show that you have at least one common question...