Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
JOINDER
Rule 8(d)(3) :Can join any claims, even inconsistent
Rule…
JOINDER
Rule 8(d)(3) :Can join any claims, even inconsistent
Rule 18(a)
(A) COUNTERCLAIMS
RULE 13(a)(1)(A)
Compulsory CC, if :check:
(1) ARISES IN SAME TRANSACTION/SM OF PF CLAIM
(2) NOT NEED ADD ANOTHER PARTY WHICH COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION
KING v BLANTON
- North Carolina case,same law as Rule 13(a)(1)
- Accident, Blanton sued King for injuries, PF ran red light, settled.
- King then sued Blanton, said B ran red light, but King DIDNT FILE COMPULSORY CC, LOST RIGHT TO SUE
- B's motion to dismiss treated into MOTION FOR SJ since decided on docs outside of pleadings
- ISSUE : whether court erred in granting SJ
- King "no chance to prosecute claim vs B", B "estopped from filing since no compulsory CC"
- as King had 9 months to prepare CC and aware but didnt, ESTOPPED and WAIVER arises.
EXCEPTIONS
- CC is subject to another pending action
- juris over main claim based on attachment than on full juris
- CCs after answer filed,DF didnt have claim at time of service
EVEN UNRELATED CLAIMS OK!!PERMISSIVE CC - RULE 13(b) (same with PFs right under 18(a)
- unrelated CC, may be separated for trial or joint
- if not filed, NOT WAIVED
-
ORDER SEPARATE TRIALS based on different issue,etc. - RULE 42(b)
(D) SUING TOGETHER AS PFS
RULE 20(a)(1)
- ARISE OUT OF SAME TRANSACTION
- INVOLVES COMMON QUESTION OF LAW TO ALL PFS
HOHLBEIN v HERITAGE MUTUAL
- four PFs,3 COAs(misrep,fraud,breach of promise)
- basis common: (i)called & interviewed for exec position,(ii)misrep certain facts about position,(iii)not told subject to probationary period
- HOHLBEIN: VP of Sales,could be terminated at will
- HOWELL: VP of Sales,different duties, fired 2 months into job
- BECKEY: Regional Claims Manager,told that be paid temporary living &preemployment expenses)
- WHITE: Training & Educational Specialist,terminated 3 months later
- DF's motion under Rule 20(a) and 21 to SEVER ACTION INTO 4 LAWSUITS
= NO SAME TRANSACTION+COMMON FACTS(not concurrently employed,positions dissimilar,common is only briefly employed,not allege common transaction,only commonality is allege right to recovery
-
DEMBOSKI v CSX
- 4 different PFs, negligence suit against train,same DF but DIFFERENT ACCIDENTS,DIFFERENT TIME,DIFFERENT PARTS OF STATES
MOSLEY v GMC
- 10 PFS, employees of GM,2 different divisions and factories,discrimination acts of discrimination,race & sex
- CAN JOIN = injured by same general policy of discriminationon part of GM and the Union", very expansive reading
SUING MULTIPLE DFsRule 20(a)(2)
- same test applied to potential DFs
-
(B) CROSS CLAIMS vs COPARTIES
RULE 13(g)
(1) claim arise out of transaction,
subject matter of original action;
(2) property relates to property,
subjectmatter of original action
-
-
-
-
(E) CLASS ACTIONSRULE 23
- (1) NUMEROSITY
(2) COMMONALITY
(3) TYPICALITY
(4) ADEQUACY
BURKE v KLEIMAN
- Olive Ida Burke sues Isaac Kleiman to stop rental to James Hall, who is African American.
- Parties stipulate that more than 95% of owners entered covenant, as required by its terms.
Burke wins suit.
LEE v HANSBURY
(No shared common interests + interests not adequately represented)
- Carl Hansberry buys property from First National Bank, brokered by James J. Burke.
Hansberry wants to contest validity of covenant.
Ill. Sup. Ct. rules, bound by stipulation in Kleiman.
- Here, the plaintiffs in the Burke action sought to enforce the racially restrictive covenant. The defendants in this case are seeking to resist the covenant. The interests of the defendants in this action and the plaintiffs in the prior litigation are not joint. In fact, they are conflicting. In light of these substantially divergent interests, the defendants cannot be said to be a part of the same class as that in the Burke action. Thus, the defendants cannot be bound by the prior litigation without violating due process.
RE TEFLON
- A class action lawsuit in state court must meet the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) to be certified.
- Rule 23(a) of the FRCP sets forth the minimum requirements that must be met in order for a class action to be constitutional.
- The party seeking certification has the burden of making the necessary showing. A class must also satisfy two implicit prerequisites:
(1) that class membership is “capable of ascertainment under some objective standard” and
(2) that the proposed class representatives meet the requirements for membership.