JOINDER

(Get cozy motherfuckers)

Parties

1) Must a party be joined by ? (or forced joinder via court)? Rule 19 LIMITED BY 1367(b)
Rule 19(a)(1) AND one of 19(a)(1) Feasible? If not feasible, then 19(b).
Prelim reqs. (A) In person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief - Will joinder Court must determine whether to proceed on
-Is person subject to service of among existing parties; OR deprive court of whether party is "necessary" or "indespensible"
process? (B) that person claims an interest in action and disposing of personal -Fourt factors: (1)would absncs prejudice
AND action in person's interest will jurisdiction? person or exstng parties? (2)could
-Joinder will not deprive court (i) as prcticl mttr impair or impede person's ability to protect - Does party prejudice vbe avoided by shaping
of subject-matter (diversity) interest; OR object to venue? judgment or relief? (3)would judgment in
jurisdiction? (ii) leave an existing party sbjct to sbstntl risk of incurring (19(a)(3)-must be prsn's absence be adqt? (4) would ?
inconsistent obligations due to interest dismissed if valid). have adqt remedy if action dismissed?
COURT MUST ORDER PERSON TO BE MADE PARTY IF indpsnsbl. Suit should be dismisd.

2) Can ? join a party? Rule 20(a) LIMITED BY 1367(b)

As a ? ? - 20(a)(1)
- Both ? s assert claims arising from 'same
transaction or occurrence' (or series thereof)?
AND
- Claims against ? involve any common question of
law or fact to all ? s?
As a ? ? - 20(a)(2) As a 3p? to a ? 's cross-claim? - 14(b)
- Are claims against ? s from the 'same transaction or -Plaintiff may implead a 3p? so long as the
occurrence'? (or series thereof)? rules would permit a ? to do it in same
AND situation.
- Claims against them share any common question of law
or fact? 1367 not implicated b/c of the "permit D"

Other Joinder of Parties by ? , ? , or 3p? . Counterclaim Joinder & Impleader

May ? join a party on a counterclaim OR a
cross-claim? Rule 13(h) NOT LIMITED BY
1367(b)
- Yes, if Rules 19 & 20 are met. (ie 20(a)(2)(A)
and 20(a)(2)(B)).
- Counterclaim against added party and
original ? are from the same transaction or
occurence as the original claim.
Impleader - Rule 14(a)(1) - 14 day limit or ordr. NOT LIMITED BY 1367(b)
- ? may, as a third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint to a non-party who is or may be liable to it
for all or part of the claim against it. via contribution (part) or indemnity (all). - 3p? is now liable to orig. ? , not
?.
- Once 3p? has claim against it, Rule 18(a) permits ? to pursue unrelated claims against him.
- Does not impact diversity (see §1367)
- Does not impact venue (see §1391(b)(1)) Only for ? -> 3p? ; not o-? -> 3p? (unless 3p? -> o-? + 19(a))
- May this non-party then implead another 3rd party ? ? Rule 14(a)(5) -> Yes.
- For same reasons as ? could implead 3p? .
See below which claims a 3p? can or must make.

For the purpose of our test, Rule 24 does

NOT exist. Parties cannot intervene; therefore
all joinders should be assumed to be by an
existing party
Claims

May a claim be joined by ? , ? , or 3p? ?

May ? or ? join another, unrelated claim? Rule 18(a)
- Is the additional claim against an 'opposing party'?
- Unrelated claims are permissible; but assess if compulsory if by ? .
- HOWEVER, these new claims must be assessed for independent subject-matter jurisdiction.
- AND res judicata may force a joinder if they DO arise out of same transaction or occurrence, even though 18(a) is completely permissive otherwise.

Against a ? (or opposing party)? - Counterclaims
Compulsory?
Rule 13(a) Must
- If from 'same
transaction or
occurence' as claim
against him; then yes.
- IF NOT asserted. The
right to bring this claim in
future is WAIVED.
Must or may a ? make an additional claim?
Permissive?
Rule 13 (b) May
- If from different events; then yes.
- IF NOT asserted. The right to bring
claim in future is NOT waived.
Then -> Rl 42 (b)
- Court will likely split these claims for
convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to
economize.
These 13 rules are NOT LIMITED by 1367(b)
Against a co-party? - Crossclaims
Crossclaim Rule 13 (g) May
- Is cross-claim arising from same transaction or
occurrence as the main claim?
- Permitted for both indemnification &/or SToO.
- Optional. If not asserted, the claim is NOT
waived for future litigation.
- This co-party is now an 'opposing party' for
purposes of Rule 13 AND Rule 18(a).
-**It is unclear if a 3pD is a "co-party" to a different
D than that which impleaded it. ARGUE FOR
BOTH. ****
Against a non-party?
See Rule 14(a)(1) Impleader. May
Remember that the claim cannot merely
be an either/or proposition saying that
new ? is only liable to ? and not it;
"substitute ? ."
? 's impleader NOT LIMITED BY 1367(b)
o-? 's direct, initial actions against 3p?
ARE LIMITED BY 1367(b)

Impleader Claim Concerns for 3p? and o-?

What can/must 3p? claim? Rule 14(a)(2) NOT LIMITED BY 1367(b)
- (A) MUST assert any defens against 3p? per Rule 12.
- (B) Apply Rules 13(a), 13(b), and 13(g) for counter-claims and cross-claims as a ?
would.
- (C) MAY assert against o-? any defense that 3p? has to ? 's claim.
- (D) MAY assert against o-? any claim arising out of transaction or occurrence that is
the subject matter of the o-? 's claim against 3p? .
SEE Rule 14(a)(3) for own defenses to o-? direct claims.
What can o-? assert against 3p? ? Rule 14(a)(3)
LIMITED BY 1367(b)
- o-? MAY assert any claim arising out of transaction or occurrence that
is subject matter of o-? 's claim against 3p? (o-? ).
IF o-? DOES MAKE CLAIM ->
- 3p? MUST then assert any defense under Rule 12 and counterclaim
per rules of Rule 13(a), though to be cited as 14(a)(3).
- 3p? MAY assert any counterclaim under Rule 13(b) or Rule 13(g).