I: Exam Format:
– Step 1:
o Ask Question
– Step 2
o Answer Question
– Step 3:
o Issue
– Step 4:
o Rule
– Step 5:
o Analysis
– Step 6:
o Answer Question Again- Conclusion
II: Course Flow Chart:
– Pleadings
o Claims
o Defenses
§ Affirmative Defenses
§ Denials
· DKI: Deny Knowledge or Information
o 12B7
o Fact Issues
– Trial:
o Procedural device to determine fact issues
o Evidenceà Find by Discovery
– Fact Finder
o Pick Judge or Jury
o Jury Instructions on Substantive Law
§ Resolve Fact Issues by evaluating evidence and applying the law to the facts, returning a verdict
– Judgment on Verdictè Resolution on Verdict
III: Important Cases:
– Hansberry v. Lee:
o One is not bound by a judgment in which he is not a designated party or to which he has not been made a party by SOP
– Martin v. Wilks:
o “Deep rooted historic tradition that everybody should have his own day in court”
o Not a party, not bound (if not adequately represented)
§ Privity Bound
– Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank:
o Notice
o The right to be heard ensured by the guarantee of due process, has little reality or worth unless one is informed of the matter pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest
– Frier v. City of Vanalida:
o Semtek Precedent:
§ FF&C:
§ Federal Court Judgments on DJ cases are treated the same as if the case had been adjudicated in state court
§ 12B6:
· Bars the new complaint under ST/O
IV: Compulsory Joinder
Joinder of persons needed for a just adjudication
(Specialized Party Joinder for Efficiency or Economy)
– Essay:
o 12B7:
§ ∆ makes Motion to Dismiss for failure to Join a Necessary Party under FRCP 19
o FRCP 19:
§ Compulsory Joinder
o Court orders Joinder or Dismisses Claim
– Joinder- Compulsory Joinder FRCP 19: Strategy for a Just Judgment
– Absentee Persons Required to be Joined if Possible:
o Step 1:
§ Is the Party Necessary?
§ CALII
· Complete and Adequate Relief
o Can п get Complete and Adequate Relief w/o this party?
§ JT’s NOT Necessary b/c they can fight it out through contribution or indemnity
· Legal Interest in Property or Subject Matter:
o Does this person claim (have) a legal interest in the subject matter?
§ Must be something of value @ stake in the lawsuit
§ Ex:
· Property/ K interest
· Impair or Impede as a Practical Matter:
o Would failure to join Impair or impede his ability to protect that interest as a practical matter?
· Inconsistent, Double or Multiple Obligations:
o Would failure to join leave an existing party subject to inconsistent, double or multiple obligations?
§ Conclusion:
· Yes. Necessary è Go to Step 2
o Helzburg v. Valley West Mall
· No: Not Necessaryè STOP!
o The absent party is not necessary and the litigation can continue
o 12B7 fails
§ Temple Case
o Step 2:
§ If necessary, is joinder feasible?
· SMJ:
o Is there SMJ if joined?
· PJ and SOP:
o Does the court have PJ over the absentee party and is he subject to SOP?
· VENUE:
o Is this venue appropriate if the party is joined?
§ Conclusion:
· Yes: Order Joinder by Intervention or Inter-pleader. STOP!
· NO: Not Feasibleè Go to Step 3
o Step 3:
§ Is the Party Indispensable? (Continue/ Dismiss)
§ If indispensable:
· 12B7 Motion Granted, dismissedè Joinder not possible
§ If not indispensable:
· Continue w/ litigation
o Step 4:
§ Indispensable Factors:
§ PPAR
· Prejudice by Judgment
o Will either party or the absentee party be prejudiced by judgment
· Prejudice Decreased through Judgment:
o Can the court decrease the prejudice through a PO?
§ Yes:à Not Dispensable
§ No:à Dispensable
§ Judgment, relief, etc.
· Ex:
o Prevention of double payout
· Adequate Relief w/o this Party:
o Is there an available and adequate remedy if the absentee party is not joined?
· Result of Dismissal will п have another forum can bring the suit in or another remedy if suit is dismissed?
o 28 USC 1404: Change of Venue: Transfer for Convenience
V: Joinder by Intervention: If Determined Feasible:
– Someone wants in/ Party Crashing
– PJ is waivable
– No such thing as Mandatory Intervention
– Ask:
o Which side is the non-party trying to intervene on?
– FRCP 24:
o Allows parties to join w/ claim or defense:
§ As of Right
§ Permissive
– As of Right:
o By Supplemental JD
o Must comply w/ Divers
you before you can join everyone using inter-pleader:
· Filed a CC in that action and use FRCP 13 (Compulsory or Permissive CC) that invokes FRCP 19. 13H then used in order to join in all the people who you were going to have in your action.
o Thus you get Inter-pleader
o 28 USC 1367:
§ Denies Supp if CNOOF or Closely Related Claims:
§ The court provides Supp JD to the claims not w/in the courts original SMJ but that arise out of a Common Nucleus of Operative Facts as those claims asserted by п that do fall w/in the courts SMJ
· The п Being under FRCP 14 or 20:
o Original SMJ
§ One claim has FQ or DJ
o Additional Claims Arising Out of SCNOOF
· Test:
o Giveth: SCNOOF:
§ If additional claims arise from SCNOOF as Anchor case
o Taketh Away: Strawbridge Rules!
§ Parties under FRCP 14, 19, 20, 24
§ Can’t join if it would destroy diversity if DJ based
· Exception FQ:
o Never applies to FQ
– Discretionary:
o Courts decide if cases attach under Supp JD
§ Yes:
· So closely Related:
o Fed Law and State Law so closely related
§ Judicial Economy:
· Convenience and Fairness
§ No
· Decline Supplemental JD
o Courts can decline to exercise Supp JD in specified or exceptional circumstancesà 30 day provision applies
§ Novel, Complex, or Unclear State or Local Law
§ State Claim Predominates Federal Claim
§ Federal Issue(s) have been dismissed and now only state issues
§ Other Compelling Reasons
· 30 Day Savings Statute
o If Federal Court has declined SMJ b/c of Discretionary, п has 30 days to re-file in sate court if there’s a Saving Statute
o Savings Statute:
§ When a case is dismissed for lack of Federal JD, a state’s Savings Statute allows the case to be filed in State Court, even though the SOL has run
o Orphan Claim:
§ Claim you are trying to piggy-back onto the Anchor claim
