Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Joinder - Coggle Diagram

- - - - limit to Rule 18: in federal court need subject matter jurisdiction
  - - - a compulsory counterclaim "arises out of the transaction or occurrence" that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim (Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co.)
        
        Ford v. Jones Motor Co. approach: logical relationship test (how to determine if counterclaim party of same transaction or occurrence): essential facts of the claims must be so logically connected that considerations of judicial economy and fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit
        
        example of logical related not being met: in the Jones case, the court ruled that plaintiff's discrimination claim and Ford's debt collection counterclaim were not logically related because the discrimination claim dealt with the rates that were given to the plaintiff based on their race and the debt collection counterclaim by Ford dealt with plaintiff's nonpayments after the rates were set (Beiner said the plaintiff's claim is based on federal statute while defendant counterclaim based on contract claim)
        
        Ginwright approach (4 inquiries)
        
        (1) Are the issues of fact and law raised in the claim largely the same?
        
        (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the party's counterclaim, absent the compulsory counterclaim?
        
        (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute the claim as well as the counterclaim?
        
        (4) Is there any logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim?
      - permissive counterclaim analysis
        
        permissive counterclaim: any claim against an opposing party not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim (Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co.)
        
        1367(c) analysis
        
        reasons for dismissing a permissive claim under 1367 (c):
        
        (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law
        
        (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
        
        (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
        
        (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction
        
        in the Ford case, the court cited this rule because the debt collection counterclaim would have become a distraction since only of the plaintiffs did not pay their debt
    - - any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot obtain jurisdiction (Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co.)
- - - - (1) that the claim asserted by or or against the party proposed to be joined arises from the "same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences" as another claim in the action (analysis same as the logical relationship test from counterclaim section)
        
        example: a party alleging racial discrimination by a supervisor at a company may join onto a claim about racial discrimination alleging the company had a company wide policy that was racist (King v. Pepsi)
      - (2) that the claim asserted by or against the party proposed to be joined shares at least one "common question of law or fact" with that existing claim
        
        example: a party that alleged discrimination by a company was able to join onto a suit that alleged the company was discriminating against them allowed joinder because all of the claims related to whether or not the general policy, which affected all the parties, would bind everyone to a common fact of whether or not that policy by the company was racist (King v. Pepsi)
  - - - (1) failing to join the absent party will prevent the court from providing "complete relief" to the "existing parties"
        
        example: in the Peabody case, the court said that without the Secretary of Interior in the suit then the tribe could not get complete relief because the tribe would not be able to indemnify the secretary of the interior
      - (2) the absent party claims an interest in the "subject matter of the litigation" and adjudicating the case in his or her absence may "as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest"
        
        example: in Peabody, the court said that the secretary of the interior has an interest in the case because the secretary would be unable to defend the legality of the lease provision
      - (3) the absent party claims an interest in the "subject matter of the litigation" and adjudicating the case in his or her absence may leave an existing party subject to incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest
        
        example: if the secretary were not in the Peabody case then the Navajo could be told by the court to not follow the contract meanwhile the secretary will be trying to enforce the contract against the Navajo
- - - - plaintiff must plead and prove an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, venue, and personal jurisdiction
        
        example: with the dispute over life insurance there was a federal question because the dispute had to do with ERISA, which is a federal law (MetLife v. Price)
    - - elements for statutory
        
        (1) "minimal diversity" between two or more adverse claimaints
        
        in the MetLife case, the plaintiff did not use this because every party was from New Jersey
        
        (2) amount in controversy is $500 or more
      - limit to it: one of claimants has to reside in that jurisdiction
    - - equitable remedy that allows a person to join in a single suit two or more persons asserting claims to that property
  - - - (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all member is impracticable
      - (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class
        
        example: in the Walmart case, there was not commonality because Walmart had no company wide policy or practices that applied to all the stores, supervisors at each store were left with their own discretion
        
        2 ways this is met in employment discrimination cases (Falcon case quoted by SC in Walmart case)
        
        (1) if the employer used a bias testing procedure to evaluate both applicants and current employees
        
        (2) siginificant proof that employer operated under general policy of discrimination
      - (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claim or defenses of the class
      - (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
      - the class needs to be ascertainable
    - - B2: class should be requested when a plaintiff seeks injunctive or declaratory relief that would benefit all members of the class
      - B3: frequently invoked for class actions seeking damages
- - - - court has little discretion in determining whether or not the party can intervene (Beiner said you want this one)
    - - the party can be allowed in at the discretion of the court
  - - - 3 weeks is sufficient (Araki case)
    - - rule: the interest is protectable under some law, and that there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claim at issue (Araki case)
        
        example: Hoo had a protectable interests in the manner in which its tax dollars are used, especially as a continued recipient of benefits (Araki case)
    - - example: in the Araki case, the court said that its ruling on the equal protection claim would impair the rights of Hoo as receipients of those funds
    - - example: in the Araki case, the court said the interest of the Hoo would be represented adequately because the government will make the same argument that Hoo would make which is the tax benefit did not violate equal protection
      - factors to consider to see if this element met
        
        1) Whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor’s argument’s;
        
        2) Whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments
        
        3) Whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties would neglect
- - - - example: can't indemnify if based on an antitrust claim because under antitrust claim, can't be passive in that have to be actively working with the other party against the plaintiff
      - example: under negligence claims, can't use this because to prove negligence have to prove that did not do knowingly
      - example: can't use this under fraud because fraud is something that is done knowingly so can't be done passively