Civil Pro Flashcards
(361 cards)
The landowner planned to build a parking lot; she contracted with builder & permit to the city.
City denied.
She sued the CITY + Director of Building dpt (individual).
City: unconstitutional taking.
Builder: Intentional Interference of Contract.
FRCP 20 (a ) (1) allows person to join as plaintiffs if
They assert any right jointly, severally, or alternatively arising from the same transaction or occurrence.
If the case presents
any (share the same) question of law or fact common to all defendants.
Assume the director asserts the counterclaim for defamation against the landowner.
Allowed.
Compulsory counterclaim
arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim.
Permissive counterclaim
does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim.
- May be brought as a counterclaim or as an independent claim in another case.
Compulsory Counterclaim
may not be brought in another case if not raised in the original case.
Here, defamation claim arose from the same events as the landowner’s claim
Director must plead the defamation claim as a compulsory counterclaim or risk losing it.
The landowner sued the city alone for taking + plaintiff 2: the builder wants to intervene.
Intervention:
- matter of right
- matter of permissive.
Right to intervene
The party claims an interest in the underlying property or transaction.
+ Resolving the case without the intervenor might impair that party’s ability to protect its own interests.
No right to intervene
An existing party adequately represents the intervenor’s interests.
Landowner cannot adequately represent the builder’s interest
The builder has no a right to intervene. It is not clear without intervention, the builder has impaired ability to protect his interest.
Nonparty: the builder wouldn’t have been bound by the result of the landowner’s case.
A court may allow permissive intervention if the intervenor’s claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the existing case.
Intelligent Cats Love Fish,
ICLF.
Intervention. Common, Law, Fact.
Impleader
A defendant may bring a 3rd party into a lawsuit for indemnity or contribution in case the defendant is found liable to the plaintiff.
Assume that the city asks the insurance to defend against the landowners claim,
The insurance says, “sorry.”
The city could have impleaded the insurer
As a 3rd party defendant to indemnify the city in case the city is liable.
Impleader
- may be used only for indemnity or contribution
- may not be used to shift primary liability to a 3rd party.
The city couldn’t implead the county to try to establish their direct liability
Derivative liability만 가능.
FRCP 19
A person whose joinder won’t defeat jurisdiction is required to be joined if:
JOINER: The court can’t provide a complete relief without her OR
JOINDER: She claims an interest that might be compromised without her participation.
Failure to join can be a ground for dismissal.
Here, the builder’s absence would not have impaired the builder’s own interests.
+ nor, the builder’s absence would not have prevented the landowner from obtaining full relief.
Therefore, the builder wasn’t a required party.
If a required party can’t be joined:
Should the court dismiss the case or allow it to be proceed?
Compulsory joinder:
1- Is there potential prejudice to any party?
2- Would a judgment be adequate without the missing party?
3- Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the court dismissed the case?