joinder and outdated suppliments

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar

Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:51 pm

joinder and outdated suppliments

Postby izy223 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:10 pm

anyone used the Civil Procedure miller hornbook for joinder? Or anyone know if the rules were changed after 2005?

User avatar

Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: joinder and outdated suppliments

Postby MarcusAurelius » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:34 pm

you really need a supplement for the joinder rules?

User avatar

Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: joinder and outdated suppliments

Postby noleknight16 » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:41 pm

MarcusAurelius wrote:you really need a supplement for the joinder rules?

I did. :(

User avatar

Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: joinder and outdated suppliments

Postby MarcusAurelius » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:56 pm

From my outline


Initial Joinder of the Parties (only applies to original plaintiffs)
20(a)(1) – Plaintiffs
Authorizes plaintiffs to sue together if
A) they assert claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence
B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action

20(a)(2) – Defendants
plaintiff may sue multiple defendants if
A) the claims arise from same transaction or occurrence
right to relief can be asserted jointly/severally/in the alternative (either/or might be responsible)
B) a question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action

P1 v. D1+D2 under 20(a)(2)
P1+P2 v. D1+D2 under 20(a)(1) and (2)
P1+P2 v. D1 under 20(a)(1)
P1+P2+P3 v. D1 under 20(a)(1)

Counterclaims and Cross-Claims (applies to all defending parties)
Rule 13
a) Compulsory–if D’s claim arises from same transaction or occurrence as P’s claim, must be asserted or lost
b) Permissive–if D’s claim is unrelated to facts giving rise to P’s claim, may be asserted or not
g) Cross Claim–Asserted against a co-party and arising out of same transaction or occurrence, but it is not permissive
configuration: P1 v. (20(a)) (D1 v. ((13(g)) D2); D2 can now assert counter-claim against D1 under 13(a) or (b)
h) can bring in additional parties on a cross claim or counterclaim if requirements of 20 (or 19) are met

Joinder of Claims
Rule 18(a)
A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party
additional claims can be completely unrelated
cannot assert unrelated claim under 18(a) if it is the only claim asserted
18(a) kicks in only after proper claim has been asserted

Rule 14 (note "3D" means third party defendant)
defendant may bring in third party who may be liable to it for recovery plaintiff obtains on the main claim
3D is not liable to D1 if P doesn’t recover from D1
distinguish between situations where D contends that another person is liable directly to P but not D1; can’t implead under 14
3D may escape liability by asserting defenses against P’s main claim; or D1’s impleader 14(a)(2)(B); 14(a)(2)(A)
3D may also file counter claims and cross claims; or implead further parties 14(a)(3); 14(a)(5)
Plaintiff and 3D may assert claims against each other if arise out of same transaction or occurrence 14(a)(3), 14(a)(2)(D)
Defendant may implead third party within 14 days of answering the complaint, without obtaining leave of court 14(a)(1)
Decision to implead third party does not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the original claim
Must still be a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the impleader claim
if not, there will usually be supplemental jurisdiction under 1367(a)
Third party is disregarded in determining whether venue is proper
Plaintiff may implead third party for claims against it
Note: when D1 impleads 3D, 3D will only be liable to D1 if D1 is found liable to P and 3D is also found negligent (negligence for the sake of example) AND if D1 pays more than his share of the judgement.

Required Joinder of Parties
Rule 19
allows any party to bring in another party if complete justice can’t be afforded the parties based on who’s already there, and
particularly when the interests of that third party might be affected

Unconventional Joinder Techniques
Interpleader - Rule 22
most important thing to recognize is interpleaders are not impleaders
If have a given piece of property that multiple parties have a claim on, can deposit that property with the court and then join everybody in the world who has a claim on that property
gives court authority to resolve multiple claims on same property
ex: unclaimed bank account - bank can start interpleader and leave litigation until court decides who’s bank account it is

Class Actions - Rule 23
Allows a plaintiff, in some circumstances, to “represent” similarly situated claimants in a “class action”
Different from rule 20’s permission to join multiple parties together in a single lawsuit because rule 20, people are additional parties, under rule 23, the class are not actual parties - they are allowing someone else to represent their interests.
defendant liable for all injuries to the entire class then there will be an administrative proceeding where class members can come in and collect their portion of the judgement
plaintiff’s attorney gets the contingency fee on the entire judgement

Intervention - Rule 24
Not frequently invoked because mostly its going to be in the interest of the plaintiffs or defendants to bring in other parties who’s claims are related
If intervenor can prove his rights will be affected by the litigation he is allowed to be joined according to rule 19 as an additional plaintiff or defendant

Rule 82: No rule of procedure shall affect jurisdiction
In any given case, have to ask two questions: is given joinder authorized by FRCP and is there jurisdiction

User avatar

Posts: 2720
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: joinder and outdated suppliments

Postby laxbrah420 » Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:00 pm

MarcusAurelius wrote:you really need a supplement for the joinder rules?
required counterclaims, then issue preclusion kinda fucks my mind

Return to “Forum for Law School Students?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests