CIVIL PROCEDURE II
I. JOINDER-Law permits joining multiple claims and multiple parties to a single proceeding to encourage efficiency in the resolution of disputes.
a. Types of Claims
i. Counterclaim-a claim for relief asserted against an opposing party after an original claim has been made.
ii. Cross-Claim-a claim asserted between codefendants or coplaintiffs in a case.
iii. Corner-Claim (Don’t use this term on the bar; just a Gensler term)-a claim made by a third party defendant against the original plaintiff or vice versa.
b. Claim Joinder
i. Rule 18(a)
1. “Pile-on Rule”-Once a party has asserted a claim against another party it may bring as many additional claims against that same party as it wants.
2. There is no transactional relationship required. A party may bring its initial claim for breach of K and bring additional claims for totally unrelated matters.
3. Advances efficiency in dispute resolution b/c allows two parties to have all claims resolved in one setting.
ii. Rule 13
1. (a)-Compulsory Counterclaims
a. Counterclaims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s original complaint shall be made by the defendant or they are gone.
i. Advances interest in efficiency by compelling all claims from either party regarding the same subject matter to be brought forth and resolved.
b. Test Required to determine if counterclaim is compulsory:
i. Same Evidence-Is there evidentiary overlap between the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s possible counterclaim?
ii. Logical Relationship-Is there a logical connection between the counterclaim and the matter in question?
2. (b)-Permissive Counterclaims
a. Counterclaims not arising out of the same transaction or occurrence may be brought against the plaintiff but they do not have to be.
b. If not made, the defendant is perfectly free to bring a separate suit for the permissive counterclaim.
c. Party Joinder
i. Rule 20(a)
1. Parties may join together as plaintiffs in a single action if their claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
a. There is no limit on the # of plaintiffs that can join together.
b. The standard for permissive party joinder is:
i. Do the claims require the same evidence?
ii. Is there a logical relationship between the circumstances involved in the claims?
iii. Is there a common question of law or fact?
2. Permissive in that no plaintiff is precluded from bringing her own claim should she choose not to join in.
3. Plaintiffs must have agreement to join together in one suit. Additional plaintiffs may force their way in through Rule 24, not Rule 20.
4. Plaintiffs may join defendants but claims against all defendants are subject to:
a. Same transaction or occurrence
i. Evidentiary overlap?
ii. Logical Relationship?
b. Common question of law or fact
ii. Rule 14
1. (a)-Defendant Impleads a Third Party
a. When the defendant f
vide the parties sufficient notice as to what is going on
ii. General theme is that states have authority over matters within their borders; however jurisdiction may extend to those beyond the borders through conduct of one of the parties.
1. Whether a court has personal jurisdiction over one party has nothing to do w/ its having personal jurisdiction over another party.
iii. Congress has made the PJ evaluation for the Federal Courts the same as for state courts in FRCP Rule 4(k).
iv. Personal Jurisdiction Menu
a. State courts are deemed to have jurisdiction over persons domiciled within the state’s borders.
b. This flows from the recognition that a state’s laws govern all those inside their borders.
i. Is the defendant physically present in the forum state?
ii. Is he there with the intent to establish residence?
d. For corporations, domicile is the state in which it is incorporated.
a. A person initiating a claim within a state’s court is deemed to have consented to that state’s jurisdiction. People are left free to choose who has authority to resolve their claims.
b. FRCP 12 deems that an objection to PJ is waived if it is not included in Defendant’s first response. When a defendant will be deemed to have consented to jurisdiction in state court is determined by state law.