I’ll CIV YOUR PRO
1. Joinder of Claims and Parties
a. Joinder of Claims
i. Proper Joinder = Rules allow it + jurisdiction over joined claim/party exists
ii. Harris v. Avery, p. 578
1. Same transaction allows you to join claims. A P may unite causes of action where they have arisen from the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject matter.
2. Abolished stricter common law rules
iii. M.K. v. Tenet, p. 580
1. Rule 18 allows joinder of all claims a party has against an opposing party
iv. Rule 18(a) – Joinder of Claims
1. Any original claimant may assert any additional claims against an opposing party
2. Restricted by SMJ
3. Does not require the joinder of all claims but res judicata often compels a plaintiff to join all related claims
4. Works in tandem with Rule 15 (amendments)
v. Rule 42(a)
1. Liberal rule allowing a court to JOIN claims whenever it is reasonable to do so to avoid costs and delays and improve efficiency
vi. Rule 42(b)
1. Liberal rule allowing a court to SEVER a claim and order separate trials whenever it is reasonable to do so for convenience or to avoid prejudice
b. Addition of Claims
i. Counterclaims
1. Precursors in common law
a. Recoupment
i. Both claims have to arise out of the same transaction
b. Set-off
i. Don’t have to be from same transaction but both claims arise out of a contract or judgment. Good: usually not barred from SOL, but can’t get affirmative relief so created counter claims.
ii. Unlimited set-off rule: D can set off any claims of any type against the D, she can’t end up with money from him, only zero.
2. Can counterclaim on any claim against the plaintiff
a. Liberal joinder rule with no “same transaction” requirement
b. Still need SMJ over counterclaim
3. Rule 13 – Counterclaims
a. Whether a counterclaim is mandatory or permissive depends on whether the counterclaim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence
b. Rule 13(a) – Compulsory Counterclaims
i. Compulsory counterclaim pleading if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence
ii. Provides that the counterclaim need not be raised if at the time the current action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action
c. Rule 13(b) – Permissive Counterclaims
i. Permissive counterclaim pleading if it doesn’t arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
ii. May not want to counterclaim for strategic reasons like choice of forum, prejudice…etc
4. US. v. Heyward-Robinson Co., p. 584
a. When a counterclaim is asserted on a contract in federal court, a claim based on another contract may be joined, if there is a logical relationship between the claims
b. Shows that Rule 13(a) means that a series of occurrences can be compulsory and not merely a single incident
c. Both claims were seen as similar to the original claim so held as compulsory
i. Same parties, same type of work, same time period. This court believes this is sufficient to establish the right to join the claims under 13a.
5. 28 USC 1367(a) à Supplemental Jurisdiction relationship
a. Claims under the same CNOF
b. 1367(b) doesn’t apply because it only applies to plaintiffs
c. CNOF is like the same transaction or occurrence
d. Heyward is basically saying that there is automatic SMJ for compulsory counterclaims but not for permissive counterclaims – if they are from the same transaction and occurrence then the counter claim is compulsory and we make you bring it and there is automatic ancillary (supplemental) jurisdiction
e. If it was permissive, then we don’t have SMJ, so we cannot take the judgment
6. 4 tests of “transaction”
a. Are the issues of fact/law raised by the claim and counterclaim similar?
b. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
c. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as defendant’s counterclaim?
d. Is there any logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim?
7. Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim
a. Leads to not being able to raise it in a subsequent claim in federal court
i. Because of res judicata or waiver or estoppel
b. Some common law exceptions
i. If you have been sued for money in 2 contracts and there’s a settlement in the 1st suit, you can still use the counterclaim in the 2nd suit if the amount paid in the 1st suit was not allocated to both suits
ii. If you are unsure, should just assert it.
**? Downsides of not knowing whether comp or permissive.
8. Rule 13(f)
a. Leave to amend forgotten counterclaim due to error has been granted pretty leniently
9. Rule 13(e)
a. If the counterclaim hasn’t matured at the time of the initial pleading, the court may allow the defendant to supplemental plead it
10. AiC takes into account the counterclaim usually
ii. Cross-claims
1. Rule 13(g)
a. Cross-claims must be part of the same transaction or occurrence
2. Lasa v. Alexander, p.593
a. Cross claims, counterclaims, and 3rd party complaints arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the subject matter of the original complaint may be joined with the original complaint
3. Usually permissive but some states have a few mandatory cross claims
4. SMJ is usually met per 1367(a) when 13(g) is met
c. Identifying Parties Who May Sue and Be Sued
i. Rule 17 – Real Party in Interest
1. Real Party in Interest (RPI) rules
a. Ellis Canning v. Int Harvester Co., p. 599
i. An insured person who has been fully paid for his loss is not the RPI real party in interet and therefore cannot maintain an action to recover the amount of such loss for the use and benefit of the insurer
2. Avoids duplicate lawsuits and ensures res judicata
i. State v. Federal law
1. A state rule allowing only the insured to enforce a claim against a tortfeasor is procedural
2. A state law which determines whether a subrogee has the rights to receive the proceeds of a tort action is substantive
ii. Rule 17(a)
1. No action is dismissed until a reasonable time for replacement of RPI has been found
iii. Do federal courts sitting in diversity apply state law?
1. There is a rule on point (Rule 17), and RPI is arguably procedural, therefore federal law applies
a. Federal common law applies to fill the gaps in Rule 17(a)
iv. Rule 17(b) – Capacity
1. Ability of an individual or corporation to enforce rights or to be sued by others.
v. Rule 17(c)
1. Governs children or incompetents
vi. Standing
1. Present doctrine requires litigant suffer injury, related to litigation and has personal stake in outcome
vii. RPI
1. Lack of capacity (minor) or standing (generally suffered injury)
2. Assignee is the RPI after it has been assigned
d. Claims Involving Multiple Parties
i. Rule 20 – Permissive Joinder of Parties
1. Ryder v. Jefferson Hotel, p. 603
a. Where 2 or more persons suffer a tortious act from the ST&O (same transaction and occurrence) that is personal in nature, the actions must be severed
b. To maintain a joint action, there must be some prior bond of legal union betwe
oined as a party if:
a. (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
b. (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. (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or
ii. (ii) expose the parties already before the court to the risk of double liability or inconsistent obligations
c. Effect of nonjoinder: if a person to be joined cannot be made a party (maybe not subject to the court’s jurisdiction) the court must determine whether “in equity and in good conscience” the action can proceed without him or whether the action should be dismissed. The courts determination is based on the following practical considerations:
i. Rule 19(b) – Indispensible Parties
1. Persons required to be joined otherwise the suit is dismissed
2. Factors to consider for not dismissing if not feasible to join them
a. To what extent a judgment rendered in the persons’ absence might be prejudicial to the person or parties
b. To the extent which the prejudice can be lessened or avoided
c. Whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate
d. ***Whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder
d. Procedure
i. Necessary Party?
1. If yes, feasible?
a. If yes, join them
b. If no, 19(b) factors to see if its equitable still
i. If yes, don’t dismiss
ii. If no, not equitable, dismiss
e. Provident v. Patterson, p. 616
i. In the absence of a party who cannot feasibly be joined, a court should not dismiss the action if, in “equity and good conscience” it could proceed without the party
ii. Rule 19(b) is a relief valve so that losing parties can’t have a case dismissed because an indispensible party wasn’t joined even though per diversity or SMJ they couldn’t be
1. Court allows the indispensible party NOT to be joined because of equity
iii. TEST:
1. Is D a necessary party?
a. Is that person required if you cannot afford a relief from an existing party or
b. Is the person who is absent claims and interest in the subject matter so that as a practical matter giving them this relief will harm the absent party?
2. Is he indispensable ?
a. No:
i. Factor in rule 19: how much prejudice would it be if that someone can shape relief, would judgment in his absence be adequate? Court can shape relief rather than have the lawsuit dismissed if prejudice isn’t that great
b. Yes:
i. Is it binding on the person? Would it harm the person? Such as being deleted from the phonebook (warner)
ii. Balance the harms, removes damages from the indispensable party.
f. Rule 12(b)(7)
i. Motion to dismiss based on failure to join a party under Rule 19
e. Impleader