Joinder of claims by Plaintiff. Rule 18(a): A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.
If the federal court gets rid of the main claim, it still has the discretion to adjudicate the state law claim joined under Rule 18.
Rule 13(a) compulsory counterclaim:
A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that—at the time of its service—the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim:
(A) arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; and
(B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Four tests in determining whether a claim and counterclaim arise from the same transaction:
Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?
Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the D’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
Will substantially the same evidence support or refute P’s claim as well as D’s counterclaim?
Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? (this test is adopted by most courts)
Rule 13(b) permissive counterclaims: A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.
Rule 13(e) (counterclaim maturing or acquired after pleading is permissive, not compulsory) states that the court may permit a party to file a supplemental pleading asserting a counterclaim that matured or was acquired by the party after serving an earlier pleading. [split issue: acquired at the time of the pleading?]
Exceptions. Rule 13(a)(2) states that the pleader need not state the claim if:
(A) when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or
(B) the opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim under this rule.
Cross claims: Rule 13(g) states that a pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant.
Joinder of parties: Rule 20 states that:
Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
Persons--as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem--may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
Rule 20 imposes two specific requisites to the joinder of parties: (1) a right to relief must be asserted by, or against, each plaintiff or defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all the parties must arise in the action. (Mosley).
Transaction is a word of flexible meaning. It may comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending on their logical relationship. (Mosley)
The rule does not require that all questions of law and fact raised by the dispute be common. Courts have found common questions to exist in a wide range of contexts (Mosley)
Rationale for Rule 20 is to promote convenience and efficient trials, and to prevent a series of lawsuits with the same transaction from depleting judicial resources.
Third party joinder: Rule 14 states that a defending party (could be the defendant or the plaintiff as a defending party in a counterclaim) may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.
Under this rule, a defendant cannot bring in a person who might be liable to the plaintiff only. Nor can the defendant bring in a person who might be liable to the defendant for some related damage that the defendant suffered. The defendant can only bring in a third-party defendant who may be responsible to reimburse the defendant for part, or all, of the judgment the plaintiff recovers from the defendant. [eg. Retailer seeking reimbursement from manufacture, tortfeasor seeking reimbursement from insurance or from joint tortfeasor]
Rule 4(k)(1)(B) gives an extra 100-mile boost for personal jurisdiction over an impleaded third party defendant.
Compulsory joinder: Rule 19 states that 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 (parties have joint interest); or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest (prevent inconsistent obligation).
Intervention: Rule 24 states that 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.
See above
Supplemental jurisdiction should be considered in a lawsuit where multiple claims are joined. One of the claims have basis for federal jurisdiction; other claims do not.
If the federal court has a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over one of the claims of the P, it may hear other claims that arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact. (Gibbs)
28 USC 1367(a) broadly authorizes federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims: Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims (including counterclaims, crossclaims, impleader claims) that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
[same transaction test? Include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. ]
28 USC 1367(b) codifies the results of the Kroger case and restricts supplemental jurisdiction. 1367(b) states that, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.
1. Is the jurisdiction over the main claim based solely on diversity?
2. If jurisdiction over the original case is based solely on diversity, is the claim asserted by the plaintiff?
3. Is the claim against persons made parties...