Joinder: GR
P is the master of his suit; can decide which claims to bring, which parties to sue, and where to bring the claim
Joinder: more than one P
All Ps may join against a D or Ds if:
- they assert a right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative; OR
- claim arises out of same transaction or occurrence AND they have at least one common question of law or fact
Joinder: one P against more than one D
P may join new Ds if:
- they assert a right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative; OR
- claim arises out of same transaction or occurrence AND they have at least one common question of law or fact
Joinder of Claims: Counterclaim
***CA: cross-complaint
- D asserts claim against opposing party (P)
- two types:
- compulsory:
- if arises out of same T/O, must assert or waive
- court will assert supplemental jurisdiction if no independent basis for SMJ (not an issue in CA)
- permissive:
- does not arise out of same T/O
- must have its own SMJ (not an issue in CA)
- no supplemental jurisdiction (not an issue in CA)
- compulsory:
Joinder of Claims: Cross Claim
***CA: cross-complaint
- claims against a co-party
- must arise from same T/O as main claim (fed & CA)
- court will assert supplemental jurisdiction (not and issue in CA)
Note: it is impossible here for the cross-claim to affect diversity in a diversity suit because D1 and D2 by definition cannot be from same state as P (not an issue in CA)
Joinder: Parties–permissive okay if claim
- arises out of same T/O
- one common issue of law or fact
Joinder: Parties–compulsory (necessary and indispensable)
Step 1: Necessary if
-without, cannot afford complete relief; OR
-absentee harmed, subject to double liability, or inconsistent judgement
Step 2: Indispensable
-would presence deprive court of jurisdiction (destroy diversity, or not be within PJ of court?)
-if so, court must decide whether to proceed without necessary party, or dismiss the case
Indispensable: factors
- alternate forum practical?
- likelihood of prejudice to anyone
- can court shape relief that will reduce prejudice?
- adequate judgment without joinder?
Joinder: other parties: 3rd party practice: Impleader
***CA: cross-complaint
D joins a new party who may be liable to D for indemnity (i.e. liable to D for reimbursement) or contribution (i.e. liable to pay part of D’s damages)
Note:
-the citizenship of the new party does NOT affect the court’s jurisdiction over the main claim; complete diversity is necessary only for the original parties
-the court will assert supplemental jurisdiction
Joinder: other parties: Intervention
Non-party becomes a party to protect his interests as P or D (fed and CA same)
Of right: must be allowed because party will be harmed: fed court will assert supplemental jurisdiction unless it destroys diversity
Permissive: must have independent source of SMJ AND there must be a common question of law or fact
Joinder: other parties: Interpleader
Allows Ds subject to multiple/inconsistent claims to same propery or obligation join all claimants in single lawsuit (e.g. stakeholder)
- allowed where party might be exposed to double liability
- Rule 22: requires complete diversity
- Statutory:
- one claimant diverse from another claimant
- $500 or more
- venue: any district where claimant resides
Process:
- D admits liability
- Deposits money with court
Consolidation (CA)
- permissive device (discretionary)
- common question of law or fact
- pending before the same court
- court orders joint hearing or trial on any or all issues
- Complete consolidation: pleadings fused–single complaint–single finding
- Partial consolidation: issue fused for purpose of special hearing/trial–pleading/judgment/verdicts remain separate
Contribution (CA)
- right of contribution among tortfeasors or K obligors
- triggered when one tortfeasor/obligor pays the entire judgment rendered against all of them
- where each D is liable for the entire amount of the judgment, a D who pays it thus has the right to sue the other D for contribution
Class Action: Elements
- Numerosity: so numerous, joinder impractical
- Common question of law or fact
- Typicality: claim of representative must be typical of those in class
- Adequate Representation: class representative and lawyer must adequately protect interest of class
Class Action: types
***Not relevant in CA
- Prejudice: needed to avoid harm to party or class (depleting fund)
- Injunctive: relief sought injunction or declaratory relief
- Damage:
- common questions predominate–questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any question affecting any individual member
- superior: class action superior method
- notice (class rep pays) ***CA: court may order D to pay
- best notice practical under circumstances
- tell them:
- they can opt out
- be bound if they do not opt out
- may enter separate appearance
- if diversity, court has SMJ as long as any class rep’s claim is more than $75,000 OR the total sum in controversy > $5 million
Class Action: CA
- Ps CAN aggregate individual claim against a D (fed contra)
- trial judge must determine the choice of law issues as part of the certification process when granting class action status
