Joinder of Claims and Parties

1
Joinder of Claims and Parties

• Addition of Claims
• CounterClaims FRCP Rule 13 (a) (h)
• - Key provisions are 13 (a) compulsory
  counterclaims (b) permissive counterclaims (g)
  cross-claims
• - Be aware of the different nomenclature for
  these pleadings in State Court re
  cross-complaints
• - What is the allowable scope of a
  counter-claim?
• - U.S. v. Heyward-Robinson what is the
  difference between
• a permissive and a compulsory counterclaim?
• - What is a same transaction under Rule 13
• - What happens if you fail to file a compulsory
  counterclaim?

2
Joinder of Claims and Parties

• Cross-Claims
• Lasa v. Alexander how broadly should we
  interpret transaction or occurrence in
  multi-party litigation?
• Identifying Parties Who May be Sued FRCP Rule
  17
• Note the difference between real parties in
  interest, representatives of parties, suing
  fictional entities, and actions brought for or
  against incompetent persons
• Ellis v. International who is the real party in
  interest?
• Can the real party in interest issue be
  manipulated to create diversity?
• What is meant by Capacity to sue?
• What are the elements required to have Standing
  to sue?

3
Joinder of Claims and Parties

• Claims involving Multiple Parties
• Permissive Joinder Ryder v. Jefferson can you
  join claims where the claims of the husband do
  not affect the claims of the wife, and
  vice-versa? Not at this point in the law.
• FRCP Rules 20, 21 and 42
• What are the grounds for permissive joinder? Rule
  20
• What happens if you join the wrong parties? Rule
  21
• Does the Court have flexibility in handling
  multi-party claims? R. 42
• M.K. v. Tenet showing a pattern, even if each
  act is unrelated, can meet the series of
  transactions or occurences requirement also
  note the policy argument
• Tanbro v. Beaunit identity of duty or contract
  is not required in order to allow consolidation
  of actions

4
Joinder of Claims and Parties

• Claims involving Multiple Parties
• Mandatory Joinder FRCP 19 Elements?
• Bank of Calif. v. Superior Court indispensable
  or just necessary?
• Provident v. Patterson Rule 19(b) requires a
  flexible approach, focused on balancing the
  equities of the parties involved
• Impleader FRCP 14 when can you add a 3rd
  party?
• Jeub v. B/G Foods 3d party claims allow parties
  to avoid multiple suits
• Too v. Kohl note the elements to be determined
  in granting impleader
• Interpleader FRCP 22, 28 U.S.C. 1335, 1397,
  2361
• Hancock v. Independent note the elements
  required, and the procedure followed upon a grant
  of interpleader
• New York Life v. Dunlevy led to the Federal
  Interpleader Act of 1917

5
Joinder of Claims and Parties

• Interpleader in the Federal Courts
• Pan American Fire v. Revere eliminating the
  distinction between strict interpleader and a
  Bill in the nature of interpleader allows us to
  focus on the underlying purpose of interpleader
  to, in this case, rescue a debtor from undue
  harrassment when there are several claims on the
  same fund.
• State Farm v. Tashire note the minimum
  diversity rule that allows interpleader cases to
  proceed in Federal Court and the fairness
  problem that would result if an insurance company
  had to wait until claimants reduced their claims
  to judgment

6
Joinder of Claims and Parties

• Intervention FRCP 24 New Parties entering
• Smuck v. Hobson note the distinction between
  intervention as a matter of right, and permissive
  intervention also note the pleading requirements