Stupid question about FRCP 20

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Stupid question about FRCP 20

Postby musicfor18 » Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:15 pm

This is a dumb question, but it leads me to confusion when trying figure out 1367(b) and the Allapatah case.

What exactly is and isn't a plaintiff joined under R. 20? If a complain is filed wherein two Ps assert a claim against D, is the second of those Ps "joined under R. 20"? Or does R. 20 only come into play if additional Ps are joined after the Complaint is filed?

SportsFan
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:26 pm

Re: Stupid question about FRCP 20

Postby SportsFan » Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:27 pm

musicfor18 wrote:This is a dumb question, but it leads me to confusion when trying figure out 1367(b) and the Allapatah case.

What exactly is and isn't a plaintiff joined under R. 20? If a complain is filed wherein two Ps assert a claim against D, is the second of those Ps "joined under R. 20"? Or does R. 20 only come into play if additional Ps are joined after the Complaint is filed?

Yes. R20 is the permissive joinder of any parties. Basically, a standard lawsuit is going to be 1 P suing 1 D. Any additional P's or D's are going to have to be joined under R20. My understanding is that then if the court decides (usually through a 12b7 motion AFAIK... someone correct me if I'm wrong) that additional P's or D's MUST be joined, then it would be under R19.

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: Stupid question about FRCP 20

Postby musicfor18 » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:46 pm

Thanks. This is exactly what I thought. Unfortunately, I asked this exact question of my professor, who told me that, if multiple Ps sue together, they are not considered joined under R. 20. Hmmm...




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: peger, sprinx and 5 guests