Está en la página 1de 2

Joinder of Claims (claim preclusion = MUST bring all claims series of related factual occurrences

R17 (real party in interest) 28 USC 1359 e.g. Rose v. Giamatti 28 US 1332(c)(2) substantive right to recover Improper/collusive devices to create DJ Legal rep. of estate = ctzn of decedent/imfant/incompetent = res. Adjudicate (same parties)(same as privity) Same for DJ (ctznship)

Joinder by Ps
R18 Any claims! (even UNRELATED) But- Cts discretion (R21) Separate Tr. (20b/42b) AiC can be aggregated (important for Sup-J)

J is a separate issue

Compulsory Counterclaims (13a)

Grumman Systems Support Corp. v. Data General Corp. -AB for copyright in F1 (St.) -BA for antitrust F2 (DC)(different St.) -A moved to stay/dismiss/move to DC of F1.(convenience) -A: compulsory counterclaim (R13a) -B brough in co-conspirators (F1 has no J over them) -2 other Ps filed against coconspirators in F2(DC) Law: 13(a) inconsistent judgts + economy (T/O = logical relationship=flexible--all circumstances & purpose of R13). +~ req. D3 over whom ~ J. -theories of recovery largely irrelevant -NOT a question of discretion, economy just flows as a consequence, its not a consideration - CAN PROCEED AGAINST ANY COMBO OF COCONSPIRATORS (~INDISPENSIBLE)

Permissive Counterclaim 13(b) 13(f) 60(b) Mercoid v. Mid-Continent Co. R 4(K)(1)(B) service if R19 only 13(a) ANOTHER ACTION PENDING OR PJ BY ATTACHMENT

Compulsory Counterclaims
Oversight/ Excusable neglect Exception to 13(a) (possibly) for patent antitrust counterclaim

13h 19&20 additional cross claims

13i discretion for separate trials under 42b Amend cross claim originaly by 15(a)


Guedry v. Marino
PERMISSIVE JOINDER 20 & 21 ST [SHERRIF 1 & 14 A] +work comp. -convenience = strongly encouraged right/relief same T/O -at least 1 common Q of law/fact ALL PARTIES -support in elections satisfies -THE 1 W/ WORK COMP ALSO ALLEGED RACIAL DISC. = SATISFIES. similar T/O motio to sever denied. Broad discretion 2. argue separate tr. 42b avoid prejudict, economy, jury confusion. 7 sets of witneses. sole discretion of Ct. -Ct: bifurcate/instructions

R21 misjoin/non-join Stateless citizen 1332----- p977 Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group Exxon Mobile v. Allapattah

Ct can cut /add so not to dismiss Parties cant cure J by changing their status post filing Ps joined under R20 (yes Div. Ctzn, but no AiC) = sup J 1367 only mentions claims against R20 jaoined defendantsz

Necessary & Indispensible Parties -- R19

Cant grant complete relief w/ out party Or absentees interest compromised IF CANT BE JOINED: E.G. dj,/pj, (FOREIGN SOV. IMMUNITY) Rep. of Philippines v. Pimentel -R19 INDISPENSIBLE PARTY Temple v. Synthes Corp Ltd Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co v. Patterson Car owner's interest in a suit against his insurer didnt make him indispensible

JOINT TORTFEASERS =/= REQ. PARTY! (dont even satisfy 19a, so ~ reach 19b (controlled by R20) 1) Ps interest in preserving a fully litigated judgment was controlling unless countered by greater opposing considerations, 2) the Ds interests in joining Dutcher were foreclosed by their failure to move for such a joinder before judgment was entered, 3) the absent party's interests were not foreclosed by his failure to be joined and the judgment entered by the trial court therefore does not bind him and causes his rights no harm as a result, 4) the efficiency of the judiciary may have been benefitted from an attempt to find a more suitable forum for the controversy before judgment was entered but, after judgment was entered, efficiency would best be served upon appellate review by preserving the trial court's judgment. Intervener needs standing to appeal. Desire to prevent adverse precedent may suffice to intervene Denyal of permissive intervener ~ immediately appealable MUST JOIN IF AFFECT TAKING cant expect to join in volutrily st Wait and see how 1 case turns out, then get another bite at the apple. (gov. crim. Suit, followed by several civ. Actions, lost, then the P didnt appeal, but other Ps appealed. P1 was claiming change of circ. when Circ. Ct. reversed.

Inmpleader R14 (some parties R19 compulsory)

Intervention - R24
Diamond v. Charles (S.Ct) Permissive intervener SEC v. U.S. Realty and Improvement Co. Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in action Martin v. Wilks Parklane Hosiery v. Shore

White firefighters challenge hiring practice settlement

Interpleader R22 / 2361

Conversion to interpleader 2361/R22 1335-- $500 + 2 claimants divers (min DJ) State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire Venue: any reside -1397 Nationwide process/J -2361