Complex Litigation Outline

Complex Civil Litigation Outline
 
Permissive Joinder
–          Basic Structure of Rules
o   Not joinder of claims (against a single party)
§  Rule 18- if you have a claim against a party and you are filing a claim against a D, you may file as many claims as you have against that person (can raise two totally unrelated claims against the same party)
§  Rule 21: Doesn’t mean court may let you bring all those claims in same court b/c under Rule 21, they can separate it
o   Severance/consolidation
§  Rule 42- courts can put the cases together as little or as much as it wants (could allow discovery together, or allow a common trial, etc.)
–          Joinder still subject to subject matter jurisdiction (just b/c FRCP says you can do it, doesn’t mean you necessarily can)
–          Rule 20- allows Ps to join together when:
o   1. Claims are being brought jointly, severally or in the alternative
o   2. Arise out of the same transaction or series of connected transaction
o   3. And there is a common question of law and fact
–          Rule 20- Standard of Review= Abuse of Discretion
o   Very deferential to trial court!
o   Since trial courts know they won’t get overturned on appeal, they act with even more discretion
o   Judges make these decisions based upon what they think their own capacity is
–          Key Values
o   Accuracy (don’t let other person’s bad acts taint my trial!)
o   Efficiency- is there some way to combine the cases that it yields such a savings that it is worth it for the system as a whole
Mosley v. General Motors Corp (1974) pg. 24
Broadest joinder case you can find
–          Gist: Women and African-American men sue Chevy and Fisher for hiring, promotion, sex/race discrimination, trial court separates, ct. app puts back together
–          Purpose of Rule 20
o   Promote trial convenience
o   Expedite the final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits
–          Reasoning: Generally favor joinder over non-joinder
–          Requirements of Joinder
o   1. A right to relief must be asserted by, or against, each P or D relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transaction or occurrences
§  Transaction Test: Series of many occurrences, depending not so much upon the immediateness of their connection as upon their logical relationship
o   2. Some question of law or fact common to all the parties must arise in the action
–          Indicators of Commonality: occurred at same time, same place, same people
–          Benefits of Joinder for Ps: discovery on a common basis reduces cost, try case on common proof reduces cost, pull weak cases in with strong ones
In Re Stand ‘N Seal Products (“Flexipel”) (2009) pg. 30
–          Gist: Ps claim that manufacturer changed chemical components of Stand ‘n Seal and immediately began experiencing respiratory problems
–          Issue: Ds move to sever the claims of each P or in the alternative, order separate trials for each P
–          Rule: If joinder is improper, then the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party (Rule 42)
–          Erie Rule (common Q of law): In federal diversity jurisdiction, apply state law (this is how we get to GA law)
–          Prof says you will always have different assessments of claims in damages so you just need to get thru causation and you are okay
–          Judicial Discretion: Even if joinder is proper, for convenience to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economoize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or 3rd party claims
Poleon pg. 32
–          Gist: Five police officers were injured in 3 different accidents involving police vehicles in which the Antilocking Brake System and air bags malfunctioned
–          Common Q of Law/Fact: Sufficient that the complaint alleged that all vehicles were manufactured by GM in the same year and were the same make and model and that each accident was caused by same defect in brakes and air bags
–          Rule: The controlling consideration is the extent of any product defects, and absolute identity of all events is not necessary
Dunavant v. Ford Motor Co (1980) pg. 32 (Contrast with Flexipel)
–          Gist: 47 Ps with personal injury and property damage claims, arising out of 30 separate accidents involving the alleged malfunction of the gear shift and transmission on their Ford automobiles
–          Similarities- Similar product defect
–          Differences: Different states/ different time periods/ no relationship b/w Ps
–          Court allows to join but Prof says probably wrong- no common Q of law or fact
Rezulin Products Liability Litigation (2001) pg. 33
–          Gist: 8 diabetes patients brought claims against the manufacturer and various providers for personal injuries resulting from ingesting the drug Rezulin
–          Bone Screws prec
o   Relevant Q: Whether the central facts of each Ps claim arise on a somewhat individualized basis out of the same set of circumstances
–          Why No Joinder
o   Do not allege they received Rezulin from the same source
o   Exposed to Rezulin for different periods of times
o   Do not allege injuries specific to each of them (court cannot determine how many Ps share injuries in common)
 
Danger of pleading commonalities
–          Sometimes you can plead yourself into a trap
–          Give up good theories to make your case fit into other cases, but more susceptible to a 12(b)(6) motion
Stanford v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1955) pg. 34
Prof thinks this case is wrong! Thinks that if you consolidate for trial should consolidate for discovery
–          Gist: Ps seek to recover damages jointly and severally from Monsanto Chemical Company and Armour & Co. allegedly caused by fluorine gas fumes emitted from the plants of the said Ds located within the vicinity of the Ps property
–          Mini H: There is nothing on the face of the complaint from which it could be concluded that the Ps claims against the 2 Ds arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or out of the same series of transactions or occurrences (Requirements of Rule 20)
o   Result: Misjoinder under Rule 21 àSeparate claims
–          Rule 42: Allows the Court to order a joint trial or hearing of any or all matters in issue in the actions or to consolidate the actions, if they involve a common question of law or fact
o   Court allows to be consolidated under Rule 42
–          Holding: Court holds that can’t be joined together under Rule 20 but we are going to try them together (consolidated)
o   Why can’t join: Did not arise out of same series of transactions or occurrences
–          Prof: How could you try and join them together?
o   Combined causation
o   Both acted tortiously and at least one of them is causally responsible (Summers v. Tice)
Liability
–          Joint liability
o   You are liable for the whole amount of an obligation along with someone else
o   Can have multiple people who are liable for the whole amount
o   Traditionally- you had to sue joint obligators together
–          Several Liability
o   Liable only for your proportionate share of the harm
–          Joint and Several Liability
o   Can pursue any one person as if they were jointly liable
o   This is the norm
o   Becomes the Ds responsibility to sort out their respective proportions
–          Alternative liability
o   Can’t tell from who the harm came
Poster v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp (1960) pg. 37
–          Gist: A seaman sued 2 steamship companies in the same suit for negligence in maintaining sanitary conditions on board their ships after he contracted amebiasis
–          Reasons against joinder: Different times, no relationship b/w 2 companies
–          Holding: The court upheld joinder on the ground that the first steamship company could be held liable for the aggravation as a damage flowing from the original exposure, and therefore that the claim arose out of both exposures
Distinguishing Joinder