Zevalking_CivProII_Winter_2013
Temple v Synthes
Temple had a plate implanted in his spine and plate broke. Temple sued the manufacturer Synthes in federal court and he sued the doctor and hospital in state court separately. Federal Court found that the hospital and doctor were required parties and that joinder was feasible, and ordered them to be joined (Compulsory Joinder). Temple refused and the case was dismissed. He appealed contending they were not required parties.
1. Without the absent party the court would not be able to grant complete relief to the existing party.
>>>J&S liability here, so there could be complete relief even only if against Synthes
2. Does the absent party claim an interest in the subject matter of the case, and the outcome of the case might impair or impede the absent party’s ability to protect their interest?
>>>no interest in case against the manufacturer
3. Absentee has an interest in subject matter of the case and without him the case might leave existing parties subject to multiple liabilities or inconsistent obligations.
>>>no double recovery problem because P gets only one recovery with J&S liability.
>>>BIG IDEA: joint tortfeasors are not required parties
EX: Rancher put cattle as collateral for loan from back. Rancher also sold some of the cattle to other people. Bank sues rancher and seeks the cattle, and starts a replevin action for possession, but not title.
Rancher answers that the other people that own the cattle are required parties, and that joinder is not possible. Therefore rancher says action should be dismissed. Is this right?
>>>NO, the other parties are not required. The replevin action is for possession, not title, so the other parties are not required because the action is not regarding title.
EX: Larry (CA) is income beneficiary of a trust, and his kids have a remainder interest in the trust. The trustee (ILL) has a power to appoint the trust to Larry at any time. Larry sues the trustee in federal court claiming that the trustee abused his power by not handing over the trust. Any compulsory joinder problem?
>>>Are the kids required parties? Yes, they have an interest in the trust that will be affected by the case. It’s not possilbe to tell if it is possible to join them here though because we don’t know about the states they are from and if it would destroy diversity. Even if it was not possible to join them, would they be indispensible? It goes either way, but probably yes because of the huge amount of prejudice, larry could spend all the money that they have an interest in.
EX: Husband was married to W1, but then divorced and married W2. His insurance policy when he died simply said to leave the money to his wife. W1 brings action against insurance company to get the money. Insurance company files for dismissal for failure to join W2.
>>>Required? Yes, there is the possibility of double liability without W2, the company could be liable for both. NO info about if joinder is feasible, but assuming its not, W2 is indispensible because of prejudice to insurance company needing to pay out twice.
Helzberg v Valley West
Helzberg (P) sues Valley West (D) for breaching contract for mall space by letting another full jeweler (Lords) set up shop. Valley West wanst to have compulsory joinder of Lord’s.
1. Required Party? Yes, they have interest in mall that will be affected. Also, double obligation of Valley west, could have double liability to Lords and Valley West.
2. Joinder Feasible? No, no PJ over Lord’s, it’s from a separate state.
3. Indispensible Party? No, they still have a contract with valley west, so they still have rights they can sue on if their rights are infringed under this ruling. Not too much prejudice to Lords because of the contract. Also, court can lessen the potential prejudice to Lords by inviting Lords to intervene.
>>>> Required but joinder is infeasible. They are not an indispensible party, so the federal action will continue.
FRCP 24: Intervention
Intervention of Right
Permissive Intervention
On a timely motion the court MUST permit anyone to intervene when:
1. Federal Statute confers an unconditional right to intervene
OR
2. Party has a significant interest in the subject of litigation AND
3. Substantial risk that the litigation will impair or impede the ability to protect the interest AND
4. Existing parties do not adequately protect your interest
On a timely motion the court MAY permit anyone to intervene when:
1. Federal statue confers a conditional right to intervene
OR
2. Applicants claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact in common
NOTE: The court has discretion to deny the motion for intervention if it thinks there was undue delay or that there will be prejudice to the parties
NOTE: Either require PJ and SMJ over the party and claim. PJ is no problem because by intervening they agree to jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction is available to interveners of right.
Natural Resource Defense Council vs Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRDC sues NRC to prevent it from letting states issue building licenses without first getting an environmental impact statement.United Nuclear sought to intervene because they already have licenses which might be affected by the ruling. (clear interest, and the interest might be subject to risk depending on the disposition of the case) They are allowed to intervene. Kerr-Mcgee and American Mining Congress want to intervene and broadly represent mining and building companies. They do not have licenses yet. ask for intervention of right. Assuming Timely motion:
1. Significant interest in the subject of litigation AND
>>>yes, Kerr Mcgee are in the mining business and it would affect their business
2. Substantial risk that the litigation will impair or impede the ability to protect the interest AND
>>>yes, because of stare decisis, if this case goes against Kerr-Mcgee’s interest, it would be very hard to fight against it.
3. Existing parties do not adequately protect your interest (ask if party in suit would accept something beneficial to them but not to you)
>>>This is the tricky issue. The defendant here is the Regulatory Commission and there is also United Nuclear that is in mining. United Nuclear already h
th the class and must vigorously prosecute those interests through qualified counsel.
23(b) Categories: (must fit in one)
1. Risk of Incompatible Duties for Class Opponent.
2. Risk of Practical Impairment of Non-Parties’ Interests.
3. Classes Seeking Equitable Relief.
4. Predominance of Common Legal or Factual Questions
23(a) Requirements
Courts look for “rigorous analysis” of 23a elements, you must prove them , not merely plead them. wal
1. Numerosity: Class must be sufficiently large as to render Joinder impracticable
//No real number, but Zevalking says 50-100 class members probably meet numerosity requirement. Over 100 definitely would work. 10 would not work.
2. Commonality: There must be questions of law or fact common to the class members the resolution of which will advance the litigation.
//That the class members’ claims depend on at least one common issue of fact or law, the determination of which is central to the validity of all the class members’ claims. If you meet commonality, you meet predominance in 23b3.
3. Typicality: Claims of class representatives must be typical of the claims of the class.
//This makes sure the class has a cohesive issue to be solved by litigation. Claims and defenses of class representative should be typical of the class, though they don’t need to be exactly the same. says that amount of claim by class rep vs. people in class won’t matter for this class, but could matter in actual practice.
4. Adequacy of Representation: Class representatives must have interests in common with the class and must vigorously prosecute those interests through qualified counsel.
// Two levels of representation here.
The class representative must adequately represent the class by having the same type of motivation as the class to move forward the litigation. No conflict of interest among class rep and class members. They must have the resources to win like adequate counsel, and the funds to notify the class members.
23(g) Class Counsel
When court decides who gets to be the class counsel, examines these factors:
Work Performed regarding claims in action // Did the attorney really work to identify class members and gather them?
Experience in handling class actions or other complex litigation // This is the determinative factor Zevalking says. **
Counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law // if you specialize in an area, all the better chance you’ll be approved
Resources // It takes lots of resources and a large law office to handle a class action suit, solo practitioner or small firm is inadequate
