Mon. Nov. 12

1) are people already adversaries? NO2) does the cause of action concern the

same t/o of an action already being litigated? NO

forbidden

Example:P sues D1 for breach of contract

P joins an action against D2 for an unrelated battery

1) are people already adversaries? YES

2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o of an action already

being litigated? NO

permitted, not required

Examples 13(b), 18(a)

1) are people already adversaries? NO2) does the cause of action concern the

same t/o of an action already being litigated? YES

permitted, not required

Examples: 13(g), 20(a), 13(h) – 14(a)(2)(D), 14(a)(3)

1) are people already adversaries? YES2) does the cause of action concern the

same t/o of an action already being litigated? YES

required

13(a)claim preclusion

Rule 20. Permissive Joinder of Parties(a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined. (1) Plaintiffs. 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.

(2) Defendants. Persons . . . 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.

impleaders

also known as

third party complaints

Rule 14. Third-Party Practice

(a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party. (1) Timing of the Summons and Complaint. A defending party 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.

(2) Third-Party Defendant’s Claims and Defenses. The person served with the summons and third-party complaint — the “third-party defendant”: (A) must assert any defense against the third party plaintiff’s claim under Rule 12; (B) must assert any counterclaim against the third-party plaintiff under Rule 13(a), and may assert any counterclaim against the third-party plaintiff under Rule 13(b) or any crossclaim against another third-party defendant under Rule 13(g); (C) may assert against the plaintiff any defense that the third-party plaintiff has to the plaintiff’s claim; and…

14(a)(2) (D) may also assert against the plaintiff any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff. (3) Plaintiff’s Claims Against a Third-Party Defendant. The plaintiff may assert against the third-party defendant any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff.

X, employee of D, gets in car accident with PP sues D in D.N.J. under theory of respondeat superiorD impleads X for indemnificationMay X bring an action against P for X’s damages in the car accident? Must he?If X does not bring an action against P concerning the car accident, may X bring an action against P for P’s breach of a contract to mow X’s lawn?

necessary parties

P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s carP sues D for negligenceD is determined to be not negligentX then sues D for negligencecan D preclude X from relitigating the issue of D’s negligence?

- P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s car- P sues D for negligence- D is determined to be not negligent – D does not have to pay P’s damages- X then sues D for negligence- it is determined that D was negligent- D pays X’s damages

Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties

(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. (1) Required Party. 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; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

- you are suing a corporation to have certain dividends declared in your name, but the majority of a board of directors has to sign on for that to happen- are the members of the board necessary parties?

The D Corp. is in the process of liquidating its assets and has only $25k leftP bought a D Corp. product that failed and is suing the D Corp. for $20k of damagesX and Y also bought D Corp. products that failed and each suffered $10k in damagesAre X and Y necessary parties?

water flows from D’s property down to P’s, flooding itP sues D to erect a dam to protect P’s propertyif the dam is erected X’s property, upstream from D’s will be floodedIs X a necessary party?

A purchasers of a debenture sues the issuer to assert alleged right to convert the debenture into stock.are the other owners of the debentures necessary parties?

An African-American who had been refused employment by a fire department is suing the city for racial discrimination in hiring. He is asking for preferential treatment in hiring by the fire department as a remedy for past discrimination. Are other African-Americans who have been refused employment necessary parties?

(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: (A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the relief; or (C) other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

Rule 24. Intervention

(a) Intervention of Right. 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.

African-Americans who have been refused employment by a fire department are suing the city for racial discrimination in hiring. They are asking for preferential treatment in hiring by the fire department as a remedy for past discrimination. May the white firefighters (or white applicants to the fire department) who would be affected by this relief intervene of right? Would there be any conditions on their intervention?