1. Tues., Oct. 28

2. two questions – 1) are people already adversaries
two questions –   1) are people already adversaries? 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o as an action already being litigated?

3. 1) are people already adversaries
1) are people already adversaries? NO 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o as an action already being litigated? NO forbidden Example: P sues D1 for breach of contract P joins an action against D2 for an unrelated battery

4. 1) are people already adversaries
1) are people already adversaries? YES 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o as an action already being litigated? NO permitted, not required

5. FRCP 13(b) Permissive Counterclaim
FRCP 13(b) Permissive Counterclaim.  A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.

6. Rule 18. Joinder of Claims (a) In General
Rule 18. Joinder of Claims (a) In General.  A party 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.  

7. 1) are people already adversaries
1) are people already adversaries? NO 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o as an action already being litigated? YES permitted, not required

8. Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim (g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty
Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim (g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty.  A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant.

9. Rule 20. Permissive Joinder of Parties (a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined. (1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

10. (2) Defendants. Persons may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

11. Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim. (h) Joining Additional Parties
Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim     (h) Joining Additional Parties. Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counterclaim or crossclaim.

12. 1) are people already adversaries
1) are people already adversaries? YES 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o as an action already being litigated? YES required

13. claim preclusion

14. 13(a) Compulsory Counterclaim. (1) In General
13(a) Compulsory Counterclaim.     (1) In General.  A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that — at the time of its service — the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim:         (A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; and         (B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.     (2) Exceptions.  The pleader need not state the claim if:         (A) when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or         (B) the opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim under this rule.

15. impleaders also known as third party complaints

16. Rule 14. Third-Party Practice (a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party.     (1) Timing of the Summons and Complaint.  A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.

17. P (NJ) sues D (NY) in S. D. N. Y
P (NJ) sues D (NY) in S.D.N.Y. Suit is under MD battery law concerning a brawl between P and D in MD. May D join an indemnification action against X, his insurance company? Is there SMJ for P's suit against D if X's state of incorporation is NJ? Is there SMJ for D's impleader against X if X's state of incorporation is NY?

18. - Assume X is joined. - D is found liable and it is determined that X must indemnify D under the insurance contract. - Subsequently X sues D in New York state court for premiums that were past due at the time of D's impleader against X. - May the suit proceed?

19. 14(a)(2)               (D) may also assert against the plaintiff any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff.     (3) Plaintiff’s Claims Against a Third-Party Defendant.  The plaintiff may assert against the third-party defendant any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff.

20. 1) are people already adversaries
1) are people already adversaries? NO 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o as an action already being litigated? YES permitted, not required

21. - X, employee of D, gets in car accident with P - P sues D in D. N. J
- X, employee of D, gets in car accident with P - P sues D in D.N.J. under theory of respondeat superior - D impleads X for indemnification - May X bring an action against P for X’s damages in the car accident? - Must he? - If X does not bring an action against P concerning the car accident, may X bring an action against P for P’s breach of a contract to mow X’s lawn?

22. intersection between joinder rules and PJ and venue

23. causes of actions joined under 18(a) by plaintiffs against defendants each must satisfy venue statute and there must be PJ over the defendants for each

24. joinder of defendants under Rs 19 & 20 there must be PJ over each defendant, the venue statute must be satisfied with respect to all defendants

25. compulsory counterclaims by defendants against plaintiffs PJ is considered satisfied (or waived) venue statute need not be satisfied

26. Permissive counterclaims by defendants against plaintiffs majority view is PJ is considered satisfied (or waived) majority view is venue statute need not be satisfied

27. crossclaims between codefendants or coplaintiffs no extra PJ argument is needed no extra venue argument is needed

28. third party complaints brought by defendants there must be PJ over the third party defendant venue statute need not be satisfied

29. necessary parties

30. Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties (a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.     (1) Required Party.  A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:         (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or         (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may:             (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or             (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

31. P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s car P sues D for negligence Is X a necessary party on the ground that a determination of D’s negligence in X’s absence will impair X’s ability to protect his interest?

32. P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s car P sues D for negligence D is determined to be not negligent X then sues D for negligence can D preclude X from relitigating the issue of D’s negligence?

33. P, D, and X are in an accident in which all three cars run into one another P sues D for negligence D is found not liable on the ground the P was contributorily negligent P then sues X for negligence Can X preclude P from relitigating the issue of P’s contributory negligence?

34. P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s car P sues D for negligence Is X a necessary party on the ground that, in X’s absence, D may be submitted to inconsistent obligations?

35. P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s car P sues D for negligence D is determined to be not negligent X then sues D for negligence D is determined to be negligent. D pays X’s damages.

36. A, B and C are in a brawl A sues B for battery (but C really did it) Is C a necessary party because he is essential for B’s defense?

37. Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties (a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.     (1) Required Party.  A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:         (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or         (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may:             (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or             (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

38. - you are suing a corporation to have certain dividends declared in your name, but the majority of a board of directors has to sign on for that to happen - are the members of the board necessary parties?

39. P sues the D Corp. for product liability concerning a product that failed and is asking for $20k of damages X and Y also bought D Corp. products that failed and each suffered $10k in damages Any chance X and Y necessary parties?

40. - water flows from D’s property down to P’s, flooding it - P sues D to erect a dam to protect P’s property - if the dam is erected X’s property, upstream from D’s will be flooded - Is X a necessary party?

41. Sublessee sues lessee to alter property
Sublessee sues lessee to alter property. Lessor, who must consent to change, is a necessary party. Why?

42. Glueck sues Company to have Company reissue shares currently held by Haas in Glueck and Haas’s name. Haas (who thinks shares are all his) is a necessary party. Why?

43. P claims a vase in D’s possession. X also claims the vase
P claims a vase in D’s possession. X also claims the vase. X is a necessary party. Why?

44. interpleader

45. A purchasers of a debenture sues the issuer to assert alleged right to convert the debenture into stock. Are the other owners of the debentures necessary parties?

46.   African-Americans who have been refused employment by a fire department are suing the city for racial discrimination in hiring. They are asking for preferential treatment in hiring by the fire department as a remedy for past discrimination. Are white applicants to the fire department necessary parties?

47. Glueck (NY) sues Company (Cal
Glueck (NY) sues Company (Cal.) in federal court in California to have Company reissue shares currently held by Haas (NY) in Glueck and Haas’s name. Is there a problem...?

48. (b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible
(b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible.  If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:     (1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;     (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:         (A) protective provisions in the judgment;         (B) shaping the relief; or         (C) other measures;     (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and     (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

49. Rule 24. Intervention (a) Intervention of Right
Rule 24. Intervention (a) Intervention of Right.  On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:     (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or     (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

50. African-Americans who have been refused employment by a fire department are suing the city for racial discrimination in hiring. They are asking for preferential treatment in hiring by the fire department as a remedy for past discrimination. May the white firefighters (or white applicants to the fire department) who would be affected by this relief intervene of right? Would there be any conditions on their intervention?

51. What if the white firefighters do not intervene?

52. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(n)

53. (B) A practice described in subparagraph (A) may not be challenged in a claim under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws— (i) by a person who, prior to the entry of the judgment or order described in subparagraph (A), had— (I) actual notice of the proposed judgment or order sufficient to apprise such person that such judgment or order might adversely affect the interests and legal rights of such person and that an opportunity was available to present objections to such judgment or order by a future date certain; and (II) a reasonable opportunity to present objections to such judgment or order;

54. P wants to build a dump in some wetlands The Army Corp of Engineers refuses to issue a permit P sues the Army Corp of Engineers May people who live by the wetlands intervene on the side of the government?

55. (b) Permissive Intervention. (1) In General
(b) Permissive Intervention.     (1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:         (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or         (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact