Top Law Schools

Hi all -
Does anyone know the main difference between permissive party joinder and permissive intervention? It seems that they are pretty similar.. is the difference just in the timing of when the party is attempting to join?

Joinder is the existing parties pulling people in. Intervention is an outside party forcing themselves in uninvited.

Joinder is the hot girl inviting your best friend to have sex with her. Intervention is your best friend raping her.

Brucewaynegretzky wrote:Joinder is the existing parties pulling people in. Intervention is an outside party forcing themselves in uninvited.

this is correct. Only the existing parties can use Rule 20 to bring others into the lawsuit.

Objection wrote:Joinder is the hot girl inviting your best friend to have sex with her. Intervention is your best friend raping her.

I'd hate to hear the analogy you have for impleader

ChattelCat wrote:

Brucewaynegretzky wrote:Joinder is the existing parties pulling people in. Intervention is an outside party forcing themselves in uninvited.

this is correct. Only the existing parties can use Rule 20 to bring others into the lawsuit.

Remember though there are difference in standards.

Rule 20 is pretty broad (see MK v. Tenet) all they need is to: assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence....and any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the question.

Rule 24 says the court must permit anyone to intervene: is given an undconditional right under a statute to intervene 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 movant's ability to protect its interest. (see DC school board case)

Basically Rule 20 says: Well, looks like you've got the same case here against the same plaintiffs, and the original plaintiffs want you in, come on in!.

Rule 24 says: Wow. If we do this without it you, you could get really hurt....and theres no other way for you to represent your interest. Ok, we'll let you override the plaintiffs party structure.

(Remember that 1367b does not give supplemental jurisdiction for plaintiffs claims arising out of these two rules)

sweetdreams21 wrote:

Objection wrote:Joinder is the hot girl inviting your best friend to have sex with her. Intervention is your best friend raping her.

I'd hate to hear the analogy you have for impleader

Impleader is you only getting the hot girl because your friend slipped something in her drink????

dantimreynolds wrote:

ChattelCat wrote:

Brucewaynegretzky wrote:Joinder is the existing parties pulling people in. Intervention is an outside party forcing themselves in uninvited.

this is correct. Only the existing parties can use Rule 20 to bring others into the lawsuit.

Remember though there are difference in standards.

Rule 20 is pretty broad (see MK v. Tenet) all they need is to: assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence....and any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the question.

Rule 24 says the court must permit anyone to intervene: is given an unconditional right under a statute to intervene 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 movant's ability to protect its interest. (see DC school board case)

Basically Rule 20 says: Well, looks like you've got the same case here against the same plaintiffs, and the original plaintiffs want you in, come on in!.

Rule 24 says: Wow. If we do this without it you, you could get really hurt....and theres no other way for you to represent your interest. Ok, we'll let you override the plaintiffs party structure.

(Remember that 1367b does not give supplemental jurisdiction for plaintiffs claims arising out of these two rules)

Re: Rule 24, 24(a) allows anyone to intervene who has a right to intervene. OP asked about 24(b), permissive intervention. Permissive intervention can be denied by the court even if the rule requirements are met... it basically applies to those who share a common interest, but who don't have any unconditional rights and won't be precluded because of the action at hand. Don't always assume that intervention is based on 24(a).

Brucewaynegretzky wrote:

sweetdreams21 wrote:

Objection wrote:Joinder is the hot girl inviting your best friend to have sex with her. Intervention is your best friend raping her.

I'd hate to hear the analogy you have for impleader

Impleader is you only getting the hot girl because your friend slipped something in her drink????

What about a class action?

kimber1028 wrote:

dantimreynolds wrote:

ChattelCat wrote:

Brucewaynegretzky wrote:Joinder is the existing parties pulling people in. Intervention is an outside party forcing themselves in uninvited.

this is correct. Only the existing parties can use Rule 20 to bring others into the lawsuit.

Remember though there are difference in standards.

Rule 20 is pretty broad (see MK v. Tenet) all they need is to: assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence....and any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the question.

Rule 24 says the court must permit anyone to intervene: is given an unconditional right under a statute to intervene 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 movant's ability to protect its interest. (see DC school board case)

Basically Rule 20 says: Well, looks like you've got the same case here against the same plaintiffs, and the original plaintiffs want you in, come on in!.

Rule 24 says: Wow. If we do this without it you, you could get really hurt....and theres no other way for you to represent your interest. Ok, we'll let you override the plaintiffs party structure.

(Remember that 1367b does not give supplemental jurisdiction for plaintiffs claims arising out of these two rules)

Re: Rule 24, 24(a) allows anyone to intervene who has a right to intervene. OP asked about 24(b), permissive intervention. Permissive intervention can be denied by the court even if the rule requirements are met... it basically applies to those who share a common interest, but who don't have any unconditional rights and won't be precluded because of the action at hand. Don't always assume that intervention is based on 24(a).

That is Correct. Good catch.