Permissive party joinder Rule(s) Who is making the action? Who is being Joined or act against? As what?

What relationship to case is required? 20 P 20a1 D 20a2 Counter or cross (13h) Outside party as co-party (D-coD, p-coP)

Compulsory party joinder 19a Any party may motion for any claim, counter or cross (13h) Outside party

Indispensable party

19b - MAKAH

Compulsory Counter Claim 13a D, TPD

Permissive Counter Claim 13b D,TPD

Cross Claim

13g Any

Impleader/ 3d party practice 14 D, TPD,( P if counter 14b) Outside party who indemnifies claim against

Intervener/A mici Curae 24/FRAP 29 Outsider

Interpleader

22 P or D

Required Party not feasable

P, TPP opposing party

P, TPP opposing party

TnO & CQ Under preclusion, use it or lose it (Claim splitting) Rule

20(a)(2) has been interpreted to allow joinder of new defendants by existing defendants only when invoked collaterally through Rule 13(h) (to a counter or Xclaim)

19a1A no complete relief (protect parties) 19a1Bi impair or impede ability to protect interest 19a1Bii multiple liability (Protect outsiders)

Can in equity and good conscience proceed or should dismiss

TnO; unless jurisdiction or Another action on claim

Any claim against opposing party, not compulsory

Against coparty (Asher must be on same side of A v.) TnO any claim or counter; or related to property in original. May be indemnity claim

Self

All parties with same claims

Of right: Interest to property or transaction impeded or impaired, not protected by current parties Permissive: CQ May directly counterclaim or defend against P; if P asserts against TPD, TPD = Co-D, so can counter/cros s claim *24a2 and 19a1Bi use same language, so what's the dif.? Interest and impairment are read differently in 19 and 24. Perhaps b/c of volition.

Claims creating multiple liability for a party

Issues/questi ons

Transaction or occurrence - 4 part, and "evidentiary similarity" or "logical relationship

Qs How much does absence prejudice that party? Can relief be shaped or protective provisions? Adequate relief in persons absence? Any other remedy for P?

TnO Related to same transaction or occurrence CQ Common question of fact or law Claim joinder 18a - A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party. Severance/ Case separation 42b (separate trial to avoid prejudice, or expedite/economize), 14a5 - (3d party practice any party may move to sever TP claim) 20b (delayed, or put to expense by the inclusion of a party against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party) 21 (Ct may at any time add or drop party or sever) 16(c)(2)(m) (may order separate trials at pretrial conference) Consolidation 42a join for trial or consolidate actions

Strategy for Joinder: Why join separate claims that are not transactionally related? e.g. contract and tort claim Economy of scale - keep costs down Bias the jury - Makes character look bad - perceptions of jury Hide a weak claim behind a strong claim (Could cut both ways) Avoid Empty chair defense (the guy who isn't here did it) Want them pointing fingers at each other in the room Why file two suits, instead of join? Impose costs on D Jurisdictional More Damages (could cut both ways) Don't want to file until "ripe" Two bites at the apple Test strategy (use lesser claim, so devote less resources, then use issue preclusion later Rush motorcycle preclusion) Statute of limitations Why litigate alone: Don't want to water down claim with weaker co-plaintiff Race to get the money from limited fund Strategic issues regarding counter claim Race to the courthouse Will you Poke the sleeping bear Preclusion law - use it or lose it

What questions in what order? Conclusion will follow. 1. 2. 3. What are the issues of law? What is the standard of review? What rules govern? 20a (joinder) and 42b (separate trials) 20a1 - transactional nexus AND question of law or fact in common 42b What principles guide the execution of the rule? Policy- what do courts care about at this point in litigation? 42b - convenience, avoid prejudice, expedite and economize 20a - err on the side of broad joinder; "When in doubt join." systemic efficiency, avoid multiple litigation If merits and joinder are linked err to allow joinder Precedent Apply "logical relationship test' 5. Are there precedents applying law to same/similar facts? Prior civil rights cases joinder allowed Use Text + policy + precedent to find a solution to the problem at hand? I.e., What is the law? How will you characterize the facts? What is the narrative?

4.

6.

7.

Under conditions of uncertainty, you must skew procedures to favor one party or another. - Goldberg v Kelly