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?
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 "join" an action ??
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.
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
1 post • Page 1 of 1