Civil Procedure
I. Basic Joinder of Claims and Parties – The uniting of claims or parties in a lawsuit – this is done to (1) determine the scope of litigation (whom to sue, which claims to assert), and (2) to ensure that all claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence are litigated and resolves at once (efficiency).
A. FRCP 20(a) – Multiple Plaintiffs and Defendants – Authorizes P’s to sue together if:
1. the right to recover must be joint, several, or in the alternative they assert claims arising out of the same transaction
a. logically related
b. similar evidence
c. prejudice vs. efficiency
2. their claims against the D or Ds will involve a common question of law or fact (However, this is at the discretion of the P)
· General Point – This allows P to sue multiple Ds in a single action if same criteria are met
3. Apache County vs. Superior Court – County in Arizona tries to recoup hospital losses from other jurisdictions, court holds that claims do not arise out of the same occurrence – failed same evidence test – (294 separate Ds) – Attempt to join the same Ds
4. Alexander vs. Fulton County – White Cops sue for racism – Court holds that since all Ps claims stem from the same allegation – subject to the same systemic pattern of racism – the suit can go forward even though there may be 19 Ps. – Joining the same Ps
5. “Pattern or practice” can also be defined as the same transaction (Mosley vs. GM)
B. FRCP 13(a) and (b) – Compulsory and Permissive Counterclaims
C. This rule is strictly for efficiency’s sake – try to litigate all the items arising out of transaction at once
D. Compulsory – If a defending party’s counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the claim against him, it is compulsory, he must assert it or lose it – P and D are in car accident, everything must be claimed by P in regards to accident
1. Exceptions:
a. Just adjudication requires presence of additional parties whom the court cannot get personal jurisdiction
b. Claims by D in which the suit against D is in rem or res judicata
c. Permissive – usually involves different events from the main transaction, but D may raise it against party
1. Claim could have nothing to do with the principal action that occurred
2. Simmons vs. Simmons – Divorcing couple – should tort claim be included in divorce proceedings – causes of action stem from different transactions – Why? (1) efficiency test (2) Does not arise out of the same transaction – would be different w/o kids.
3. FRCP 13(g) – Cross-Claims – A claim asserted by one party against a co-party – on the same side as D vs. D. These claims are (1) Not compulsory (2) Can fall within supplemental Jurisdiction. The claim must meet two requirements:
a. It must have arisen out of the same transaction or occurrence that is subject of the original action
b. Party must ask for actual relief
c. Rainbow Management Group vs. Atlantis Subs – Boat and sub collide – Passenger sues both P and D, D files a cross claim, but P never responds. P then files suit against D for action arising from prior transaction – Court rules that P can’t do this. P is required to file a compulsory counterclaim after a cross-claim was made against him, if the action arises out of the same occurrence and is substantial
E. FRCP 14 (a) – Impleader – A D who believes that a third person is liable to him for all or part of the P’s claim against the D may implead such a person as a third party D. Does not create a right of indemnity or contribution, you must show that it exists in the substantive law through a:
a. Statute
b. Contract
c. Joint Tortfeasors
d. To implead the Third Party Defendant (TPD) D’s claim must:
i. Arises out of the same cause of action brought by the P
ii. Works well with claims made against TTP for indemnity, subrogation, ie contracts
· Lopez De Robinson vs. US – Court holds that these parties are not joint tortfeasors, cause of action by P did not apply to TPD – Impleader is denied.
· However, Impleader is discretionary – depending upon the judge
F. FRCP 18a – Joinder of Claims
1. Once a party has made a claim another party he may then make any other claim against that
a. They are never required
b. They maybe independent of the original claim
c. Supplemental jurisdiction does not apply
i. subject matter jurisdiction must be individually satisfied for each claim
2. McCoy v. Like – inheritance case were nieces and nephew wanted to join all claims against uncle who was thought to have coerced his sister-in-law into writing him into her will. Court holds once a person is made a party joinder of claims against that party is unfettered.
G. Claim Preclusions aka Res Judicata
1. Merger
a. When your claim is merged with the judgment that has been passed on it
b. If the two claims are closely enough related, then you only plead one and the other merges into it. They would then be barred from being tried separately.
2. Bar
a. If P loses his action, his claim is then extinguished and he is then barred from suing again on that cause of action.
H. Collateral Estoppel
1. If I sue Gifford for Armani damage and then I find out that I have body damage from it, can I sue him for that later as well? NO! Because STO!
2. Issue preclusion bars same facts (STO) and claim preclusion bars actions.
II. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Court has jurisdiction over the content of the claim
Article III of the Constitution renders the lower federal courts to be ones with limited jurisdiction.
Two types of federal court subject matter jurisdiction:
Federal Question Jurisdiction §1331
i. Provides the fed courts with subject matter jurisdiction when a federal question is involved
1. A question arising out of the constitution, the law, or the treaties of the USA
ii. U.S.C. §1331 and U.S. Constitution A
s include
i. Location of employees
ii. Location of tangible property
iii. Location production of activities
iv. Where income is earned
v. Where purchases are made
vi. Where sales take place
4. Amount in Controversy
i. Should exceed $75,000
ii. Both compensatory and punitive damages are counted
iii. Interest counts if it imposed by agreement, but not if it is imposed by law
iv. If seeking injunctive or non-monetary relief, amount is determined by attempting to approximate the monetary value of the relief being sought
v. Determined by what’s stated in P’s complain
1. You cannot aggregate different plaintiffs’ claims.
2. Compulsory counterclaims, in almost all jurisdictions, do not count
iii. Exceptions
1. Federal courts will not exercise diversity jurisdiction over:
a. Probate of will
b. Family law / domestic relation cases
i. divorce, alimony, and child custody
c. where underlying state law is unclear and where there are important state interests at stake.
iv. Alienage Jurisdiction
1. Exists where there is a suit between citizens of state, on one side, and citizens of foreign states, on the other.
2. A suit solely between citizens of two foreign countries does not fall within this.
a. a permanent resident is a citizen of the state where she permanently resides
Supplemental Jurisdiction §1367
i. Parties that may not otherwise have jurisdiction can be joined because they are closely enough related to the original claim
ii. Requirements
1. federal question or diversity (complete diversity and $75,000)
2. “common nucleus of operative facts arising out of the same transaction or occurrence” according to Gibbs
3. If under diversity, have to be allowed joinder
iii. Federal Question
1. Assuming substantiality of the federal issues, if federal claim closely enough related to the state claim, then court will hear both together
2. If the state claim constitutes the real body of a case, to which federal claim is only an appendage, the state claim may fairly be dismissed.
3. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs – Gibbs brought a federal and state claim that were closely related. Court used the “common nucleus of operative facts” test and said that the claims were closely enough related that federal court could hear the case if they wanted.
