Joinder

Question 1

What are the two things you must consider when thinking about a joinder fact-pattern?

Answer 1

1. Is this joinder procedurally permissible under applicable FRCP?
2. Is this joinder jurisdictionally okay (there is a still question about SMJ because FRCP does not confer SMJ)?

Question 2

Procedural Joinder and Rules

Answer 2

-Joining claims and parties
-Rule 18: JOINDER - open season for claimants (can assert any claim against opposing party; the claims do not have to be related)

-Rule 13: Counter and Cross
- 13(a) - MUST bring COMPULSORY claims (arise out of same T/O of original claim –> logical relationship test - not formalistic, it’s whether the totality of claim has substantial overlap)
- 13(b) - Permissive (any counterclaim that doesn’t have the same T/O; can bring permissive at any time?)
- 13(c) - Cross claim (claim against co-party, must arise out of same T/O BUT it is permissive)
*When a co-party brings a substantive claim against you (UNLESS CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY CLAIM), they are now considered OPPOSING party and compulsory counterclaim kicks in (Rainbow case)

          - 13(h) - Pleader (Indemnification or Contribution claim -- additional party who is or may be liable for all or part of claim against current party)

-Rule 20 - Joinder of Plaintiff or Defendant (You can join P or D when claims arise of same T/O and raise at least one common question of law or fact)

Question 3

Rule 18

Answer 3

Joinder of Claims
A party (plaintiff) asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party (defendant)

Question 4

Two Types of Counterclaims

Answer 4

1. Compulsory: Must be asserted in pending case when it arises from same T/O. If you do not bring a compulsory counterclaim, IT IS GONE (Rule 13(a))
2. Permissive: Any CC that is not compulsory. A claim against opposing party that does NOT arise from transaction or occurrence as the same claim against you (in essence, open season for counterclaim)

Question 5

Test for Determining if particular counter claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence

Answer 5

Logical Relationship Test

Logically related in a way that it makes good sense to try them together? AND consider
1. totality of claims,
2. nature of claims,
3. legal basis of recovery,
4. law involved,
5. respective factual background that is going to drive how going to prove the claim

Question 6

If a compulsory counterclaim arises out of same transaction or occurrence it automatically satisfies …

Answer 6

1367(a) same case or controversy

Question 7

Same Case of Controversy

Answer 7

1367(a)

(a) Supplemental jurisdiction can reach all claims a part of same case or controversy
- TWO WAYS TO ASK IF SAME CASE OR CONTROVERSY (I.E., 1367 SATISFIED) = Majority vs Minority rule

Question 8

Majority View - 1367a Same Case or Controversy

Answer 8

Treat standards of Rule 13 and 1367 as synonymous
-T/O = CC
-No T/O = No CC
-If don’t arise out of same T/O, you’re not apart of same case or controversy

Question 9

Minority View - 1367a Same Case or Controversy

Answer 9

Loose factual connection (between claim and counterclaim) (Somethings that don’t arise out of same TO bc no logical sense to try together, they are still connected enough to call them same case or controversy)
-Believe section 1367 C/C is more generous
-Some claims that aren’t T/O (Rule 13) can still be in same case or controversy (Section 1367)

Question 10

Rule 13(a)

Answer 10

Counter and Crossclaims

(a): MUST bring COMPULSORY claims NOW (ones arising out of same T/O)
- Logical Relationship Test: Not formalistic, it is whether the totality of claim (law, respective factual background) has substantial overlap, if so = compulsory)

Question 11

Steps - Determining Compulsory and Permissive Counterclaims

Answer 11

1. Is the claim compulsory?
   -Does it make sense to try these cases together? (consider factors such as totality of claims, nature of claims, legal basis of recovery, law involved, respective factual background that are going to drive how going to prove the claim)
2. If yes, claim is compulsory (Already determined if T/O exists because that makes it compulsory; Automatic jurisdiction)
3. If no, claim is permissive

Two Views of Counterclaims & 1367
(1) Majority: If TO, yes CC (1367) = so yes jurisdiction; If no TO, automatic assumption 1367 doesn’t work so no jurisdiction.

(2) Minority (loose factual connection)

Question 12

Cross claims are permissive or compulsory?

Answer 12

Rule 18
Permissive
Cross claim against co-party: Open season on co-party

BUT once a co-party is hit with a substantive cross claim, it becomes an opposing party and compulsory counterclaim kicks in

Question 13

Rule 13(b)

Answer 13

Permissive counterclaims: any counterclaim that does not have the same T/O

Question 14

Rule 13(c)

Answer 14

-Crossclaim against co-party (same side of the v)
-MUST arise out of same T/O but it is PERMISSIVE (you do not have to bring a cross-claim)
-When a co-party brings a substantive claim against you (UNLESS contribution or indemnity), they are now considered OPPOSING party and compulsory counter claim rule kicks in

Question 15

13(h)

Answer 15

Adding a Party to a Cross or Counterclaim
-You can add a party to cross- or counter-claims IF Rule 19 or 20 is satisfied

Question 16

Pleader

Answer 16

Rule 14
-Governs joinder
-Indemnification or contribution claim = additional party who is or may be liable for all or part of claim against current party

Question 17

3rd Party Plaintiff

Answer 17

Person doing the adding

Question 18

3rd Party Defendant

Answer 18

Person being added

Question 19

Rule 20 - Joinder of Plaintiff or Defendant

Answer 19

You can join P or D when claims arise out of same T/O and raise at least one common question of law or of fact

Question 20

Joinder of Necessary Party - Steps

Answer 20

1. Is it a necessary party?
2. Is it feasible to add them?
3. If is it not feasible, court weights 19(b) factors

+THERE MUST BE SMJ! (diversity, FQ, or supplemental jurisdiction)

Question 21

Step 1 - Joinder of Necessary Party - Determining if Necessary Party - 3 Qs

Answer 21

Rule 19
An absent party is necessary if (CIO):
1. Complete relief cannot be afforded without absent party (but typically can always afford complete relief) (19(a)(1))
2. Absent party has an interest that will be impaired (prejudice absentee prong) (19(a)(1)(b))
3. Absent party’s absence will lead to double/multiple or inconsistent obligation against existing party
-Double obligation: twice on same contract
-Inconsistent Obligation: two things that are both impossible to do

(CIO) Acronym: Complete relief, impaired interest, obligation

Question 22

Are joint tortfeasors necessary parties required to be joined?

Answer 22

NO

Question 23

Step 2 - Joinder of Necessary Party - Is it feasible to join the necessary but absent party?

Answer 23

1. If yes, they are joined.
2. If NO (infeasible because of SMJ, PJ, or Venue) –> LOOK AT STEP 3

Question 24

Step 3 - Joinder of Necessary Party - Infeasible to join then consider …

Answer 24

19(b) Factors - should the show go on? Should we HEAR it?
1. Yes there is prejudice but HOW MUCH prejudice will there be to the parties if the case still goes on
2. If there is prejudice, is there someone we can do to ELIMINATE OR REMOVE prejudice (telling plaintiff to accept limit on damages)
3. If we proceed, can we say that judgement without the absent person is adequate?
4. Does plaintiff have adequate remedy if claim is dismissed

HEAR (Test Acronym):
How much prejudice?
Elimination or removal of prejudice possible?
Adequate judgment without absent party?
Remedy adequate for P?

Question 25

No Independent stand-alone jurisdiction --> Supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 25

For use with jurisdictional question and there is not independent stand-alone jurisdiction and there is a supplemental jurisdiction question, you have to pull up 1367(a) 1367 (a) - Authorize, Grant = Same case or controversy * Majority rule: tag-along is same case or controversy if arise out of same t/o. t/o = logical reasoning test), * Minority rule: same case or controversy question. Just ask whether there is a loose factual question between anchor and tag-along. This is easier to meet) If 1367(b) kicks in, that does not mean that it is golden and there is supplemental jurisdiction → 1367(b) = EXCEPTION * FINGER TEST * 1367(b) - must read; ONLY applies of **original jurisdiction is founded SOLELY ON DIVERSITY** * Only removes supplemental jurisdiction for CERTAIN claims * Text at end/clause at end of this 1367b = we ignore this for our class * Best way to look at 1367(b) = claim by claim 1367(c) - Discretionary provision – court may decline or keep jurisdiction * Just need to know why this exists and why SCOTUS wrote this * Assume court will always assert jurisdiction unless prof tells us to * Jurisdictional fact pattern about sup jurisdiction, we can assume that court will retain jurisdiction (1367a)

Question 26

Can you have supplemental jurisdiction over ppl who did not meet the amt in controversy

Answer 26

Possibly Kennedy - Yes if only Plaintiff meets it, you can supplemental jurisdiction others, assuming that no 1367b exceptions apply -For example: P joined family under supp juris because it arose out of same case and controversy --> 1367b did not takeaway in Starkist case - Question to ask: Have to look to see if OPPOSING PARTY was made a party under rule 20 (OR ANY OTHER RULES LISTED IN RULE 1367b)? If yes, 1367b REMOVES SUPP JURIS In just DIVERSITY actions, all claims between plaintiff and defendant on original jurisdiction is completely destroyed – this is our takeaway -This means that if we see a case where we have multiple plaintiffs joined under Rule 20 or Rule 23, then we should look at ALL Rule 20 plaintiffs and Rule 23 named plaintiffs, if any are non-diverse from defendant, then we are DONE -Thus, There is NO JURISDICTION AT ALL – 1367(a) does not apply