FRCP 19 Required Joinder of Parties

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
goansongo
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:19 am

FRCP 19 Required Joinder of Parties

Postby goansongo » Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:32 pm

Do you guys know where i can get more information about this specific rule? I have the E&E Civ Pro and Glannon Guide but he doesn't really talk much about the specifics of this rule. My class talked about 19(b) and the analysis of the four factors. Know any books that talk about this and the other joinder rules?

Rule 19
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.

What does it mean by prejudice in part 1 and 2 of the factors?

User avatar
rodandgun
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:29 pm

Re: FRCP 19 Required Joinder of Parties

Postby rodandgun » Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:08 pm

The Aspen guide on civil procedure by John Freer has a relatively thorough explanation of Rule 19. It was a really great book that I found to be much better than the E&E (which I was somewhat cursory).

Disclaimer - I don't have a grade for civ pro yet, so I very well may have no clue what I'm talking about.

User avatar
napolnic
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: FRCP 19 Required Joinder of Parties

Postby napolnic » Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:30 pm

goansongo wrote:Do you guys know where i can get more information about this specific rule? I have the E&E Civ Pro and Glannon Guide but he doesn't really talk much about the specifics of this rule. My class talked about 19(b) and the analysis of the four factors. Know any books that talk about this and the other joinder rules?

Rule 19
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.

What does it mean by prejudice in part 1 and 2 of the factors?


The prejudice means that the excluded party would be adversely affected by the result without having been part of it in court. Say A and B are in a business and are the sole owners of it. Bank seizes the assets, B sues, but does not include A. If B wins and receives back all of the assets, A would be prejudiced because they no longer have any assets and B has all of them.

jj09
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: FRCP 19 Required Joinder of Parties

Postby jj09 » Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:43 am

Hi there,

Would really appreciate it if anyone could me out with this civil procedure question

Rule 19 and 24 joinder of parties

Alot of the cases / examples I've come across illustrating this rule focus the discussion on whether someone/something (lets call him A) is a necessary party to a suit and whether A's "joinder" is required. What I don't quite get is this: How exactly does A "join" the suit ? Does A join in as a plaintiff or a defendant? What are A's claims?

Example:

In the affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger, Grutter brings suit against Umich alleging discrimination in its affirmative action policies. The plaintiff seek, amongst other things, injunctive relief forbidding continuation of the alleged discriminatory admissions process. A group of 17 African American individuals seeks to intervene on the premise that the resolution of the case will directly threaten their protected interests - admission into the college. The court concludes that the group seeking to intervene should be allowed to join suit. What I don't understand is how they would go about their joinder.

Grutter ------------> Bollinger

Does Grutter assert another claim against " AA" as a defendent? Does "AA" assert a claim against Bollinger? Does "AA" assert a claim against Grutter? In what capacity will they become parties to the suit ? How should the "AA" claim arrow be drawn in the above diagram ? How does a rule 24 party get "joined" into the suit.

All that is mentioned in the judgment is their substantial stake in the resolution of the suit and that being the justification for their permitted intervention. Nothing seems to suggest how they go about joining the action.

Could you help me on this? Thank you.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 4 guests