Basic Joinder

Question 1

The fact that the Rules authorize joinder of claims/parties _____ personal or subject jdx

Answer 1

does not confer, power vs. permission

Question 2

Policy behind joinder

Answer 2

expansively resolve disputes without creating more

Question 3

A trial court cannot set ___

Answer 3

binding precedent

Question 4

Normally the consequences of messing up joinder are..

Answer 4

dismissal w/o prejudice and leave to amend

Question 5

When are the few times joinder=preclusion

Answer 5

18a, 13a, 19

Question 6

what is the same transaction/occurrence

Answer 6

seems like would use same evidence but very squishy

Question 7

Rule 18 is about

Answer 7

joinder of claims

Question 9

Under R18, joined claims ____ arise from same transacton

Answer 9

do not have to

Question 10

Rule 13 is about

Answer 10

counterclaims and crossclaims

Question 11

13a

Answer 11

Compulsory counterclaim: must state any opposing claim that arises out of same transaction that is subject matter of opposing party’s claim and does not require adding another party over whom CT cannot get jdx

Question 12

Exception to 13a

Answer 12

if claim is subject of another pending action

Question 13

13b

Answer 13

permissive counterclaim- can state any claim not compulsory

Question 14

13c

Answer 14

Counterclaim need not diminish or defeat recovery sought by opposing party. may request relief that exceeds or differs in kind from the relief sought by opposing party

Question 15

13g

Answer 15

Cross-claim against co-party, can bring if same transaction

Question 17

Ds shouldn’t bring any counterclaims if they are making ___

Answer 17

12(b)(2) motion

Question 17

Under ____, Court can and probably will order a separate trial for permissive counterclaims

Answer 17

42(b)

Question 17

Podhorn rule

Answer 17

13a preclusion

Question 18

Rule 13 shows a reluctance to ___

Answer 18

drag in new parties (but not impossible)

Question 18

Podhorn facts

Answer 18

suing landlords for claims related to tenancy but landlords already sued for back rent and P didn’t file counterclaim at that time

Question 18

Podhorn holding

Answer 18

Failure to pay back rent same transaction as tenancy concerns

Question 19

Podhorn weirdness

Answer 19

even if counterclaim was not triable before that same judge, Ps not relieved of obligation to file it (no jdx to hear case but jdx to receive notice and file it -Missouri thing)

Question 20

Critique of Podhorn

Answer 20

inhabitability could arguably be different transaction, present different evidence

Question 21

Rule 20 is about

Answer 21

permissive joinder of parties

Question 22

20(a)(1)

Answer 22

Ps must assert right to relief arising out of same transaction AND common Q of law or fact

Question 23

20(a)(2)

Answer 23

Ds must have relief asserted against them arising out of same transaction AND common Q

Question 24

For rule 20, claims need not be the ___ just need to __

Answer 24

same, arise from same set of facts

Question 25

Under rule 20, once a P has claims arising out of the same facts against multiple Ds, they can then ___

Answer 25

join unrelated claims they have against those Ds

Question 26

Rule 21 is about

Answer 26

remedy for misjoinder

Question 27

Rule 21

Answer 27

Misjoinder of parties not a ground for dismissing an action. Court may at any time add or drop a party on motion or on its own. Can also sever any claim against a party

Question 28

Rule 21 allows the court ..

Answer 28

a lot of discretion, room for lawyering

Question 29

Cooper holding

Answer 29

rules for motion to sever, rejecting permissive joinder of parties

Question 30

Cooper reasoning 1

Answer 30

Not same transaction: different apps, different stages and delays for different reasons

Question 31

Cooper reasoning 2

Answer 31

maybe experiencing same harm but for different reasons

Question 32

Cooper reasoning 3

Answer 32

Since individual causes for delay, no factual commonality, fact that claims arise from same general law doesn't establish common Q of law

Question 33

Cooper reasoning 4

Answer 33

not serving judicial economy, each claim must be looked at individually anyways

Question 34

Cooper reasoning 5

Answer 34

Not dismissing, split up cases into new cases, how else sever

Question 35

Misjoinder can be remedied at ___ so some ___ can happen first

Answer 35

any point in the case, fact finding

Question 36

Generally, a party is necessary if failing to join them ___

Answer 36

would prejudice a party already in the suit

Question 37

If an action is dismissed because of an indispensable party, the P must ___

Answer 37

sue elsewhere

Question 38

Rule 19 is about

Answer 38

required joinder of parties

Question 39

19a`

Answer 39

necessary party- w/o whom court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties OR that person claims interest related to the action where disposing in their absence may impede their ability to protect that interest or leave existing party substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations because of the interest

Question 40

19b

Answer 40

indispensable party if necessary party cannot be feasibly joined, court must determine whether action should proceed or be dismissed factors to consider (b1-4)

Question 41

19b1

Answer 41

prejudice to them or existing parties

Question 42

19b2

Answer 42

potential protective provision to lessen prejudice

Question 43

19b3

Answer 43

whether judgment without them would be adequate

Question 44

19b4

Answer 44

whether P would have an adequate remedy if dismissed for nonjoinder

Question 45

For 19a the third party interest must be __

Answer 45

legally recognized one

Question 46

For 19, inconsistent judgments or multiple obligations are not the same as __

Answer 46

inconsistent obligations

Question 47

Daynard rule

Answer 47

Court not required to dismiss an action where only one co-obligor under K is joined as D in the action

Question 48

Daynard holding

Answer 48

Rules for motion to sever, parties are not necessary and indispensable

Question 49

Daynard reason 1

Answer 49

complete relief can be accorded because JS liability

Question 50

Daynard reason 2

Answer 50

Here JS applies to Ks

Question 51

Daynard reason 3

Answer 51

Daynard obligee (already fulfilled promise)

Question 52

Daynard 4

Answer 52

judgment will not bind absent party

Question 53

Daynard reason 5

Answer 53

inconsistent adjudications not same as inconsistent obligations

Question 54

Daynard reason 6

Answer 54

typical outcome for rule 19 case BUT normally joint tenants necessary and indispensable

Question 55

Rule 14 is about

Answer 55

impleading

Question 56

14(a)(1)

Answer 56

D may as third party P bring a claim against a non-party who may be liable to D for all or part of the claim against it

Question 57

14(a)(2) Third party D must bring

Answer 57

(1) defenses against third party P (2) compulsory counterclaims against third party D

Question 58

14(a)(2) third party D may bring..

Answer 58

any counterclaim against third party P, any cross claim against another third party D, any defense against P claim, any claim against P arising out of same transaction

Question 59

14(a)(3)

Answer 59

P may assert against third party D any claim arising out of transaction (unless destroys diversity jdx)

Question 60

Impleader is always up to ..

Answer 60

judicial discretion

Question 61

Factors in favor of impleading

Answer 61

efficiency, avoid inconsistent judgments

Question 62

Factors against impleading

Answer 62

undue delay, complication of issues, potential prejudice to P

Question 63

Gross is about

Answer 63

impleader can be speculative

Question 64

Gross rule

Answer 64

When impleading, D does not have to prove the third party would be liable to them if found guilty, just that they may be

Question 65

Gross holding

Answer 65

allowed impleader

Question 66

Gross reasoning

Answer 66

purpose of 14(a) efficiency, court had discretion and third party claims from same core of facts so better than starting new case