IV) Rule 19: Compulsory Joinder (Ds or Ps who MUST be joined)
A. Purpose
1. The object of rule is to reduce delay, needless repetition and expense in civil itigation, or to avoid prejudice to a party or absentee
B. Those who MUST be joined
1. Courts have no discretion if party is necessary, if feasible
2. When joinder of a person falling under Rule 19(a) is not feasible, Rule 19(b) provides a framework for determining whether the person’s absence is so problematic to the case that it cannot go on without him
a. Cases under this rule may be subject to as many as three inquiries:
i. Requirement of joinder of the absentee
ii. feasibility of joinder; AND
iii. Whether the case should go on when required joinder is not feasible
C. Three part test:
1. Is absentee a “necessary” party because-
a. Court would not be able to grant complete relief to EXISTING parties without absentee; or
b. ABSENTEE has interest in subject matter of case and disposition of case without him might impair/impede HIS ability to protect that interest; or
c. Absentee has interest in subject matter of case and disposition without him might leave EXISTING parties subject to multiple liability or inconsistent obligations
**If NO, absentee is not a necessary party. If YES, continue to Step Two**
2. Is joinder of the absentee “feasible”?
a. Is there SMJ if the absentee becomes a party?
b. Will court be able to exercise PJ over absentee?
i. This includes service of process
**If YES, absentee MUST BE JOINED (But may be dismissed if he makes proper venue objection). If NO, go to Step Three.**
3. Is absentee an “indispensable party”, requiring dismissal?
a. Decision Factors:
i. How much will absence of the absentee prejudice him or existing parties?
ii. Can court lessen prejudice by some protective provision in the judgment?
iii. Will judgment rendered without absentee be “adequate”?
iv. Will P have an adequate remedy if the court dismisses the action? Is there another forum?
D. Required Parties Under 19(a) – When Must Joinable Persons Be Brought In?
1. Paragraph (a) sets up three separate categories of required parties
a. One is required according to Rule 19(a)(1)(A) if “in that person’s absence, the court can’t accord complete relief among existing parties
i. Emphasis here is on the desirability of joining those persons in whose absence the court would be obliged to grant partial or hollow rather than complete relief to the parties before the court
– In close cases, can meaningful relief be granted without the absentee?
b. One is ALSO a required party when, according to Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i), “the 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…as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest
i. Here, the rule recognizes the importance of protecting the person whose joinder is in question against the practical prejudice to him which may arise through a disposition of the action in his absence
– What is necessary is a prospect of detriment to the absentee from the case serious enough to entitle him to an opportunity to influence the outcome in a ways only a litigant can
c. Finally, one who claims an interest relating to the subject of the action is a required party according to Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) when disposing of the action in the person’s absence may leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because the interest
i. The strongest case here is where a party, usually a defendant, risks either double liability or inconsistent judgments
V) Rule 24: Intervention
A. Permitting an unjoined person to elbow her way into a suit where no one wants her
1. Intervention of Right: 24a (The Court MUST permit)
a. Must satisfy four requirements
i. Intervention MUST be timely
ii. Intervenors may NOT lie in wait until the end of litigation
iii. The Intervenors MUST have an “interest” (NOT mere economic expectation) in the property or transaction that is the subject of suit (As a Practical Matter)
iv. That interest MUST be in some strong way at risk (As a Practical Matter)
b. Even if above are satisfied, intervention will be denied if:
i. Those already in the lawsuit are adequately representing the interest
c. When the applicant’s stake in the outcome is no greater than that of an existing party with whom the applicant would be aligned, AND when that existing party is NOT in collusion with an opposing party, incompetent, or hostile toward the applicant, representation by the existing party often will be deemed adequate and intervention of right will be denied
2.
A person cannot be bound by a judgment in a litigation to which he was not a party!
Permissive Intervention: 24b (The Court MAY permit)
a. Requirements
i. Must be filed timely
ii. Must contain a common question of law or fact
– Common claim or defense
b. Court has Discretion to:
i. Deny motion if intervention will UNDULY delay or prejudice pending litigation
c. This is warranted ONLY when savings of party and judicial resources from avoiding an extra lawsuit outweigh costs from the added presence of the intervenor
i. 24b rarely does more than advance the interest of the applicant and possibly the court in more cost efficient litigation
B. Must meet PJ, SMJ, Venue Requirements
1. PJ no problem because by moving to intervene, intervenor consents to PJ
C. Parties are not bound by previous litigation UNLESS:
1. They are joined and there is no duty to intervene in the lawsuit even if their rights may be affected
D. Arrangement
1. The courts must look beyond the pleadings and arrange the parties according to their sides in the dispute
2. In order for parties to be opposing parties, they must have a collision of interests over the principal purpose of the suit
VI) Rule 22: Interpleader
A. Purpose
1. Permits “stakeholder” who might be subject to multiple lawsuits by claimants to avoid t
The class must present common questions of law and fact common TO the class
° Absolute identity is NOT required
– All questions of law or fact need not be common or classwide
° The requirement may be satisfied when a pattern of discriminatory conduct was alleged
~ Despite the fact that the conduct might have affected various class members in diff’t ways
ii. Adequacy of Representation
– The representatives must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class
° Those most motivated to pursue the interest of common class
° Does he have the resources and time required to litigate the claim?
– Class council
° Must have experience in handling and managing class actions and type of case involved
° Must have the financial resources to pursue the claim
– Purpose is to best serve the people without a voice!!
iii. Numerosity
– The size of the class must be very large so that joinder is NOT possible or impractical
° i.e., people are from different jurisdictions or cannot afford to join
° Only requires a showing of extreme difficulty or inconvenience of joiner
iv. Typicality
– The representatives must present claims and defenses typical of those class members
– Will usually be found if the claims or defenses of the representative and the class stem from the same events or rest on the same legal theory
° One afraid of suffering illness from asbestos vs. those already ill from asbestos
C. Named Representative (2nd Step)
1. After certifying the class, the court will seek out an individual who will represent that class
a. Known as a “named P”, generally he initially files the class action
2. Elements
a. Must satisfy C.A.N.’T.
b. Must show a common injury
c. Must be suing on similar legal grounds
3. Headless Class Actions
a. Class action defendants or original plaintiff withdraws from the litigation or is disqualified
b. A valid class action may still exist without the named rep
c. Court has several options:
i. Voluntary Replacement (chosen by the party’s attorney)
– A new ind’l who fulfills all the prerequisites may pick up where the disqualified rep left off
ii. Assigned Representative
– Court may assign a named rep to prevent dismissal of an action
iii. Retained Representative
Court may keep disqualified rep so long as he will proceed in the best interest of
