Civil Procedure II
MacDonald
Book: Yeazell
I. Joinder
a. General:
i. Always look for joinder rule first
ii. Typically, the joinder of unrelated claims by plaintiff involves Rule 18 (permissive)
iii. Rule 18 allows aggregation of claims to reach 75k jurisdictional amount
1. Rule 42 (b) court can sever for trial if they want
b. Counterclaims (2 types)
i. compulsory: must arise out of same transaction of occurrence; logical relationship test (SCNOOF); supplemental jurisdiction is there if needed
ii. permissive: any claim against an opposing party; no supplement jurisdiction (must establish independent requirements: Fed Q or Diversity juris)
1. Always be looking for subject matter jurisdiction as ct can refuse to look at supplemental jurisdiction
c. Cross-claims
i. SCNOOF/derivative test
ii. Supplemental requirement: must be part of same controversy
iii. Supplemental jurisdiction will be available if needed
iv. Always permissive: meaning they can be brought separately
v. A v. B à bring in C, C çcan bring counterclaim against B
d. Rule 20: Permissive Joinder
i. Says: In order to have multiple pls or dfs: must arise of SCNOOF and common Q of law or fact
e. Rule 14
i. Generally used by dfs
ii. Bring in a 3rd party
iii. Must be diritive, if defendant isn’t liability then 3rd party isn’t
iv. ∏ v. ∆ ß 3rd party ∆
1. two kinds:
a. indemnity (all)
b. contribution (part)
v. Proper 3rd party claims – supplemental jxs there
vi. Must be 3rd party complaint drawn up
vii. 3rd party may raise any claims that ∆ could have brought against ∏
II. Rule 4 K (1)
a. A party joined under Rule 14 or Rule 19 can be served within 100 miles (in every jurisdiction) within judicial district of the US (personal jurisdiction)
III. Once you have proper cross-claim or 3rd party claim
a. Go to Rule 18 and bring in any other claim
i. Must look for other jurisdictional basis
ii. Can use to get aggregate amount for proper cross claim jurisdictional limit
IV. Kroger v. Omaha Public Power District
a. Supplemental jxs for OPPD à Owen
b. Can’t bring claim against 3rd party as it defeats diversity
c. Congress tried to codify in §1367 (b)
i. Can’t use supplement jxs to get around diversity statute
V. Star-kist court
a. Interpretation of §1367 (b) doesn’t prohibit co-plaintiffs joined under rule 20 from using supplemental jurisdiction
b. When there isn’t complete diversity…no anchor claim, so §1367 (b) not needed
c. §1367 (b): plaintiff can not get around diversity to sue multiple defendants; multiple plaintiffs can use supplemental to sue defendant as long as one claim reached the jurisdictional limit and complete diversity exists
VI. Rule 19 (compulsory joinder)
a. Key difference is….in Rule 20 option to bring in other party, in this rule the option isn’t there (very narrow)
b. 19 (a) who is a “necessary” party?
i. (1) In absence of party complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties[MSOffice1] or
ii. (2) Absent party claims interest in subject matter of the suit and they are so situated that resolution of the suit without them may:
1. (i)as a practical matter impair or impede
won’t dismiss
iii. 19 a 2 ii – cts left with choice to dismiss or the prejudice so severe they need to allow it to go forward w/o other party; availability of interpleader would be looked at
iv. Rule 19 is going to interfere with the autonomy of plaintiff in lawsuit; pl loses a little bit in how they want the lawsuit structured
v. (not 19) Intervention is a rule that interferes with pls autonomy; allows the outside to elbow their way into the suit (Rule 24 a, 24 b)
VII. Rule 24
a. Rule 24 (a) – intervention as of right
i. Requirements:
1. timely application
a. submit motion with grounds
b. proposed pleading
2. (1) A statutory right to intervene; or
3. (2) All of the following:
a. An interest in the transaction that is the subject of the action; AND
b. That may be impaired/impeded by the resolution of the action; AND
c. The applicant’s interest is not adequately protected by the parties
b. Rule 24 (b) [MSOffice4] – permissive intervention (entirely at ct’s discretion)
i. Requirements
1. timely[MSOffice5] application
One of the following:
[MSOffice1]Protects system
[MSOffice2]Protects outside party
[MSOffice3]Protects defendant(s)
[MSOffice4]efficiency
[MSOffice5]most discretion here
