CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
Mandatory Joinder
Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties
(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.
(1) Required Party.
A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:
(A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
(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) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.
(2) Joinder by Court Order.
If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.
(3) Venue.
If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court must dismiss that party.
(b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible.
If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:
(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;
(2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:
(A) protective provisions in the judgment;
(B) shaping the relief; or
(C) other measures;
(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and
(4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.
(c) Pleading the Reasons for Nonjoinder.
When asserting a claim for relief, a party must state:
(1) the name, if known, of any person who is required to be joined if feasible but is not joined; and
(2) the reasons for not joining that person.
– (d) Exception for Class Actions.
o Necessary party
§ Complete relief cannot be afforded without that party (real estate cases in particular)
· Party with a significant interest who’s interest may be practically (not necessary legal rights) impaired without being joined into the suit
· Nonparty has an interest and with absence of the non-party, there could be inconsistent judgments
o Feasible Party
§ Party within the jurisdiction of the court, venue, subject matter
· Adding necessary party cannot destroy subject matter jurisdiction
· If the party who has been added objects to venue, the court must dismiss the party; i.e. venue isn’t considered until the added party objects to venue
o Indispensable party
§ Look to the rule for things the court considers
· Is there an alternative forum for the party?
Intervention
– Party asking or being permitted to join in the lawsuit
– Rule 24
Intervention
(a) Intervention of Right.
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
(b) Permissive Intervention.
(1) In General.
On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:
(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
(2) By a Government Officer or Agency.
On timely motion, the court may permit a federal or state governmental officer or agency to intervene if a party’s claim or defense is based on:
(A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency; or
(B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under the statute or executive order.
(3) Delay or Prejudice.
In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.
(c) Notice and Pleading Required.
– A motion to intervene must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.
o Types of Intervention
§ Of Right Intervention
· ELEMENTS
o Application is timely
o Significantly protectable interest
o Practical impairment
o Inadequately represented
· Statute may confer the right to intervene in the lawsuit
o Challenge the constitutionality of an act of congress
o Housing discrimination claims
§ Permissive Intervention
· ELEMENTS
o Independent grounds for jurisdiction
o Motion is timely
o Common question of law or fact
o Not Adequately represented by another party
· Conditional right to intervene conferred by statute
· Claim must be related with common question of law or fact
o Entirely at
or if not feasible to post a bond at least equal to the value of the property
– Interpleader is still available even if the stakeholder maintains an interest in the stake and does not dismiss themselves from litigation
§ For statutory interpleader you must have federal diversity – interpleader cannot be used to establish jurisidiction
CLASS ACTIONS
– Class actions are essentially a rule of joinder
o RULE 23
(a) Prerequisites.
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
(b) Types of Class Actions.
A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:
(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:
(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
