Joining Parties - Civil Procedure

Joining Parties

1. Permissive and Mandatory Joinder

Rule 19(a): Persons Required to be Joined if Feasible

A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction (meaning diversity) must be joined as a party if:

1. in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties

2. 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:

   1. as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest,

   2. or leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

Rule 19(b): When Joinder is Not Feasible

If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include.

1. The extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;

2. The extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:

   1. Protective provisions in the judgment (e.g. in Miller tapes, auto insurance set-aside)

   2. Shaping the relief

   3. Other measures

3. Whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate

4. Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for non-joinder

Temple v Synthes

Med mal case w/ docs and device company. It is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single suit. Such a party is merely a permissive party to an action against another with potential liability out of the same action.

Republic of Philippines v Pimentel

Case brought by Merrill Lynch in interpleader. Where sovereign immunity is asserted, and the claims of the sovereign are not frivolous, dismissal of the action must be ordered where there is a potential for injury to the interests of the absent sovereign. Merrill also won’t get complete relief without them joined. They’re required. Can’t do it without them, so dismiss. Ruling here driven by respect for sovereignty. Stevens concur/dissent: their interests are substantial and they could/should have waived sovereign immunity

Rule 20(a): Permissive Joinder--Persons who May Join or be Joined

1. Plaintiffs: persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:

   1. They assert a 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

   2. Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action

Chase says in practice they need the permission of the original plaintiff

2. Defendants: Persons may be joined in other action as defendants if:

   1. 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

   2. Any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action

3. Extent of Relief: Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant need be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. The court may grant judgment to one or more plaintiffs according to their rights, and against one or more defendants according to their liabilities.

Rule 21: Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever a claim against a party.

Rule 42: Court can consolidate common issues of law or fact

2. Impleader, Interpleader, and Intervention

Impleader (Rule 14): A defending party may, as a 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. Third-party defendant would then have to respond and include any compulsory counterclaims it has.

Toberman v Copas

Negligence resulted in car crash and injury. One of the defendants tried to add a third party, claiming that third party was responsible.

Court says a theory that another party is the correct defendant is not appropriate for a third party complaint. It can be a defense, but is not grounds for a third party complaint). It must set forth a claim of secondary liability such that, if the third party plaintiff (original defendant) is found liable, the third party defendant will be liable to the original defendant.

This makes sense, in order to prevent plaintiff and initial defendant to from colluding to get around diversity requirements.

Interpleader (Rule 22): A plaintiff can join parties through interpleader if there are claims that may expose him to double or multiple liability, whether or not the claims have a common origin and even if the person bringing the interpleader denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. (see Pimentel v Philippines)

Statutory Interpleader (28 USC §1335): Federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes over $500 or more by parties of diverse citizenship, or if the plaintiff has given the sum to the clerk of the court. Such an action may be entertained although the titles or claims of the conflicting claimants do not have a common origin, or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another

Interpleader of course not available as a substitute for bankruptcy for someone to discharge his debts.

State Farm v Tashire

State Farm has multiple claims against their insured. Benefit just worth $20,000, but claims total in the millions. They don’t want to be liable for an amount more than the policy limit., so they try to ask the court to require all claims to go through this interpleader proceeding and no others. They do this b/c they would have to cover their insured’s attorney’s fees for any later suits. Supreme Court says stakeholder only has right to compel interpleader about the fund itself, not with respect to all claims against the insured party.

• Limited the reach of interpleader to those defendants who have a clear fixed pot or defined asse that is incapable of satisfying all claimants. Interpleader is not indented for the defendant who may simply not have enough money to survivie all claims—that is bankruptcy; not intended as a way to efficiently resolve all multiparty claims.

Intervention (Rule 24):

a) Intervention of right: Court must permit anyone to intervene who 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.

b) Permissive Intervention: Court may permit intervention by a party that shares a common question of law or fact with the main action; may also permit intervention of government agencies w/r/t its regulations,

American Lung Assoc v Reilly

Several utilities intervened to block suit against Bush EPA for failing to update NAAQS. Court holds that to merit consideration for intervention, movant must:

1. file a timely application

2. claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is subject of the action

3. the action must, as a practical matter, impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest

4. unless the movant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

3. Class Actions

Judge’s Active Role in Class Actions:

• Granting or denying certification

• Managing the Process

• Power over notice to the class

• Judge can divide into sub-classes

• Appoints class counsel

• Judge must approve proposed settlements after class members have had opportunity to challenge them

Rule 23--Class Actions

Typicality v Commonality:

Commonality: the existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient” for commonality. All about common questions of law or fact

Typicality: Hurdle is not great, but named plaintiffs must show more than common issues among themselves and the absent class members. In Wells Fargo, where challenging a company-wide policy, was enough for typicality that the named plaintiffs and class members had same job title and were subject to same policies at issue. Need not be identical, just sufficiently co-extensive.

Adequacy: must have qualified and competent counsel and no conflicts of interest (Hansberry)

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT CLASS TYPES

Rule 23

(a) Prerequisites.

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all...