Mosley 742

1
Mosley (742)

• Facts that led to suit?
• What did D.Ct. order?
• There was no final judgment -- so how was there
  an appeal?
• What is standard of review?
• Whats test for same transaction under 20(a)?
• (1)
• Absolute identity required?
• (2)
• Each plaintiff will suffer different damages.
  How can there be common questions?

• Why was (1) satisfied here? (2)?
• Is decision on the merits?
• What does App. Ct. order?
• Whats that mean for discovery and trial? See
  747 n.3.
• Why did parties care so much about joinder?

2
Misjoinder (747-48)

• Suppose plaintiff joins other defendants or
  plaintiffs.
• If defendant thinks joinder is improper, should
  he move to dismiss the party or claim?
• Under Rule 21 what is the relief for improper
  joinder?

• Suppose joinder is proper (i.e., its authorized
  by a Rule)

3
SMJ, 20(b), 21 and 42 (747-48)

• Look at statute if no SMJ, then dismiss claim
  for lack of SMJ.

• Even if joinder of claim or party is proper, may
  the court order separate trials on some issues or
  claims? Severance of claims or parties?

4
Joinder of Parties by Defendants (and sometimes
Plaintiffs against whom a counterclaim is made)

• 13(h) and 14

5
Rule 13(h)
6
Rule 14 Joining a Party Without Necessarily Also
Asserting a Claim Against an Existing Party

• But first a Brief Tutorial on Indemnity and
  Contribution

7
Indemnity (K) andDerivative Liability (tort)

• Suppose you apply for a loan, but the bank asks
  for your parents to sign instead. After you
  promise your parents that you will pay them back,
  you dont and bank sues them.
• Your parents can claim contractual indemnity
  (implied or express, depending on the facts).
• If the bank sued your parents, and there wasnt
  rule 14, could they bring you into that suit? See
  Rule 13(h) (and then 19 and 20). Do they allow
  your parents to join you to a suit by the bank
  against your parents?

• You run a 7-11. You buy your inventory from a big
  distributor. A customer gets sick after drinking
  a can of Coke you bought from the distributor, so
  sues you.
• You can sue the distributor for contribution or
  indemnity under tort law.
• If plaintiff sued you, and there wasnt Rule 14,
  could you bring the distributor into that suit?
  See Rule 13(h) (and 19 and 20). Do they allow
  joining the distributor?

8
Impleader under Rule 14

• A defendant who sues a third party is called a
  third-party plaintiff.
• The party sued by the third-party plaintiff is a
  third-party defendant.

• A defendant can sue a third party who is or
  may be liable to the defendant for all or a
  part of the plaintiffs claim against the
  defendant.

9
If I owe plaintiff, you owe me not plaintiff
shoulda sued you, not me.

• Price (748)
• Facts that led to suit?
• Who did plaintiff sue?
• Who did defendant implead?
• What was the substantive legal theory that made
  it possible?

• Is court correct that once Latco had anchor claim
  against ITW, R18 let it add addl claims?
• Is there SMJ?
• Why under 1367 will there always be SJ over
  claims by defendants under Rule 14?

10
Problems 752-53

• (a)
• (b)
• (c)

11
Rule 14 How/When/What

• See handout on course web page. We wont cover
  in class. It just diagrams the rule so you can
  see what it allows.

12
Problems 754

• 1
• 2
• 3 (be sure you understand his reasoning)

13
Kroger (755)

• On the state of pleadings as of start of trial,
  was there SMJ over plaintiffs claim against
  Owen?
• What came out at trial that affected SMJ?
• Why do you think this came out at trial, 2 years
  into suit?
• On the state of pleadings 3 days into trial, was
  there SMJ over plaintiffs claim against Owen?

• Iowa plaintiff sues OPPD, a Nebraska defendant.
• OPPD impleads Owen
• Why does 14(a) give authority for OPPD to implead
  Owen?
• Plaintiff then asserts a claim against Owen,
  ostensibly a NE citizen.

14
Kroger (755)

• At trial, plaintiff established negligence and
  the jury awarded 240k for death of her husband,
  and father of her four children, even though
  plaintiff defendant both were citizens of Iowa.

• Supreme Court did what?
• Is that insane?
• What about Rule 8(b)? Judicial estoppel?

15
Kroger Today

• Do courts today have SJ over Mrs. Krogers claim
  against fellow Iowan Owen?
• Remember only source of SJ is 1367.
• Problem 4, p. 761?

• Suppose her anchor claim against OPPD had been
  based on FQ, and then she made the same state
  claim against Iowan Owen.
• SJ?

16
1367 Supposedly Only Codified Kroger

• We are textualists here (otherwise well lose our
  sanity) and the Supremes were (supposedly) in
  Exxon v. Appalalatapaphah

• Well keep going through this process throughout
  the semester for practice, but especially after
  next week well do some exercises and hypos.