Civil Procedure

Question 1

Joinder of Claims

Answer 1

Under the federal rules of civil procedure (FRCP), this is a problem of
permissive joinder. Under this rule, a person may join a case as plaintiff and bring any claims against defendant that: 1) arise out of the same transaction or occurrence; and 2) there exists an issue of fact or law from that transaction or occurrence that is common to all plaintiffs in the case.

Question 2

Application

Answer 2

Here, the woman and passenger are attempting to join their individual claims in the lawsuit against the driver in federal court. The woman and passenger both suffered injuries as a result of their collision with the driver while riding in the car together. As such, the woman’s claims and passenger’s claims arise out of the same transaction (they share the same nucleus of operative fact and are logically related) and the man’s negligence is an issue of fact and law
that is common to both woman and the passenger. As such, the FRCP allows woman and passenger to join their claims since they meet the requirements for permissive joinder.

Question 3

Claim Preclusion

Answer 3

Res judicata, i.e., claim preclusion, prohibits claims that have been or could have been brought in a previous proceeding. A claim is barred under claim preclusion when: 1) the claim arises out of the same case or controversy as the previous proceeding; 2) the identity of the parties is identical to that of the previous proceeding; 3) the decision of the court was final, made on the merits of the case, and made by a court of proper jurisdiction; and 4) the claim arises under the same cause of action that the previous claims were brought under. Claim preclusion also applies to compulsory counterclaims.

Question 4

Application

Answer 4

Here, the woman will be precluded from bringing her claim. The claim the woman is bringing now was a compulsory counterclaim and she was required to bring it in the original action as a defendant. A counterclaim is compulsory when it arises from the same nucleus of operative facts and rests upon the same facts and law to prove. Since the woman’s claim was for damages from the same accident, she was required to bring it as a counterclaim against man
in State A. Since claim preclusion applies to woman’s counterclaim, the analysis applies. The woman’s claim of negligence/damages is one that arises out of the same accident as the one in the State A case. The woman is the plaintiff, and the man is the defendant in this case, the party’s identities are the same as the previous State A case (the added presence of passenger does not allow woman to circumvent claim preclusion). The decision of the State A court was final and made on the merits of the case since it weighed evidence and heard arguments. Lastly, the claim arises from the same accident as the woman’s original claims in State A. As such, woman is precluded from bringing her claim as a result of the judgment.

Question 5

Issue Preclusion

Answer 5

Issue preclusion, unlike claim preclusion, precludes the re-litigation of an issue of law or fact that has already been decided. Issue preclusion can be used offensively or defensively. An issue is given preclusive effect when, 1) the issue was decided in a previous proceeding and the decision was made on the merits of the case, 2) the issue was central, or at least considered, when making the
decision, and 3) the party objecting to issue preclusion was a party to the previous case.
Here, the issue of the man’s negligence was determined in the previous proceeding against woman. The determination of his negligence was central to the decision. The party objecting is man, a party to the previous suit. As such man cannot deny his negligence with respect to passenger.