Thurs Nov 1 relation back 15c Relation Back

Thurs. , Nov. 1

relation back

15(c) Relation Back of Amendments. (1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: (A) the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back; (B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out — or attempted to be set out — in the original pleading; or…

15(c)(1)(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.

complex litigation joinder of parties and causes of action

two questions – 1) are people already adversaries? 2) does the cause of action concern the same transaction or occurrence as an action already being litigated?

1) are people already adversaries? YES 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o as an action already being litigated? NO joinder permitted, not required

13(b) Permissive Counterclaim. A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.

18(a) In General. A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party

1) are people already adversaries? NO 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o as an action already being litigated? YES joinder permitted, not required

13(g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty. A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant

Rule 20. Permissive Joinder of Parties (a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined. (1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

(2) Defendants. Persons. . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim. . . (h) Joining Additional Parties. Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counterclaim or crossclaim.

1) are people already adversaries? YES 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o as an action already being litigated? YES joinder required

claim preclusion

(a) Compulsory Counterclaim. (1) In General. A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that—at the time of its service—the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim: (A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; and (B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

(2) Exceptions. The pleader need not state the claim if: (A) when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or

13(a)(2) Exceptions. The pleader need not state the claim if: … (B) the opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim under this rule.

- Officer P sues arrestee D in California state court for battery in connections with P's arrest of D - California has a compulsory counterclaim rule - must D join in his answer his federal civil rights action against P concerning P's actions in the arrest? - if D brings the counterclaim, may P remove? - if D brings the counterclaim, may D remove?

1441(a) Generally. — Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending

Officer P knows that he is likely to be sued under federal civil rights law by D, someone he arrested he feels that a state court would be more favorable to him than a federal court how might P use the compulsory counterclaim rule (assuming it applies in state court) to ensure a state court forum for D’s federal civil rights action?

P sues D in federal court concerning negligence • D makes pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim • D’s motion is granted • subsequently D sues P in federal court concerning negligence in connection with the same accident • P asserts defense that D is precluded from bringing action because it was a compulsory counterclaim in the earlier suit • barred?

(a) Compulsory Counterclaim. (1) In General. A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that—at the time of its service—the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim: (A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; and (B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

- P (NY) sues D (Cal) in federal court in Cal concerning a battery that the two got into in NY - D counterclaims concerning breach of an unrelated contract that took place solely within NY - P brings a motion to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of PJ - what result?

- assume that P sues D for battery in federal court - D answers, asserting the defense of lack of PJ and joins a counterclaim for his own damages in the brawl - P argues that D has waived defense of PJ by counterclaiming - result?

12(b): "No defense or objection is waived by joining it with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion"

impleaders also known as third party complaints

Rule 14. Third-Party Practice (a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party. (1) Timing of the Summons and Complaint. A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.

(2) Third-Party Defendant’s Claims and Defenses. The person served with the summons and third-party complaint — the “third-party defendant”: (A) must assert any defense against the third party plaintiff’s claim under Rule 12; (B) must assert any counterclaim against the thirdparty plaintiff under Rule 13(a), and may assert any counterclaim against the third-party plaintiff under Rule 13(b) or any crossclaim against another third-party defendant under Rule 13(g); (C) may assert against the plaintiff any defense that the third-party plaintiff has to the plaintiff’s claim; and…

P, Z, and X are in a barroom brawl P sues Y, Z’s employer on the ground that Z’s battery was committed in the course of employment May Y implead Z? May Y implead its insurer I? If P sues Z, may Z implead X?

14(a)(2) (D) may also assert against the plaintiff any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff. (3) Plaintiff’s Claims Against a Third-Party Defendant. The plaintiff may assert against the thirdparty defendant any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff.

- X, employee of D, gets in car accident with P - P sues D in D. N. J. under theory of respondeat superior - D impleads X for indemnification - may/must X join an action against P for X’s damages in the car accident? - if X does not bring an action against P concerning the car accident, may X bring an action against P for P’s breach of a contract to mow X’s lawn?

- X, employee of D, gets in car accident with P - P sues D under theory of respondeat superior - D impleads X for indemnification - May X bring an action against P for X’s damages in the car accident? - Must he? - If X does not bring an action against P concerning the car accident, may X bring an action against P for P’s breach of a contract to mow X’s lawn?

intersection between joinder rules and PJ and venue

causes of actions joined under 18(a) by plaintiffs against defendants each must satisfy venue statute and there must be PJ over the defendants for each

joinder of defendants under R 20 there must be PJ over each defendant, the venue statute must be satisfied with respect to all defendants

compulsory counterclaims by defendants against plaintiffs PJ is considered satisfied (or waived) venue statute need not be satisfied

Permissive counterclaims by defendants against plaintiffs majority view is PJ is considered satisfied (or waived) majority view is venue statute need not be satisfied

necessary parties

Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties (a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. (1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s car P sues D for negligence Is X a necessary party on the ground that a determination of D’s negligence in X’s absence will impair X’s ability to protect his interest?

P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s car P sues D for negligence D is determined to be not negligent X then sues D for negligence can D preclude X from relitigating the issue of D’s negligence?

P, D, and X are in an accident in which all three cars run into one another P sues D for negligence D is found not liable on the ground the P was contributorily negligent P then sues X for negligence Can X preclude P from relitigating the issue of P’s contributory negligence?

P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s car P sues D for negligence Is X a necessary party on the ground that, in X’s absence, D may be submitted to inconsistent obligations?

P, D, and X are in an accident in which D runs into P’s and X’s car P sues D for negligence D is determined to be not negligent D does not pay P any damages X then sues D for negligence D is determined to be negligent. D pays X’s damages.

A, B and C are in a brawl A sues B for battery (but C really did it) Is C a necessary party because he is essential for B’s defense?

Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties (a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. (1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

- you are suing a corporation to have certain dividends declared in your name, but the majority of a board of directors has to sign on for that to happen - are the members of the board necessary parties?

P sues the D Corp. for product liability concerning a product that failed and is asking for $20 k of damages X and Y also bought D Corp. products that failed and each suffered $10 k in damages Any chance X and Y necessary parties?

- water flows from D’s property down to P’s, flooding it - P sues D to erect a dam to protect P’s property - if the dam is erected X’s property, upstream from D’s will be flooded - Is X a necessary party?

sublessee sues lessee to alter property. lessor, who must consent to change, is a necessary party. why?

Glueck sues Company to have Company reissue shares currently held by Haas in Glueck and Haas’s name Haas (who thinks shares are all his) is a necessary party why?

P claims a vase in D’s possession X also claims the vase X is a necessary party why?

interpleader

a purchaser of a debenture sues the issuer to assert alleged right to convert the debenture into stock are the other owners of the debentures necessary parties?

African-Americans who have been refused employment by a fire department are suing the city for racial discrimination in hiring they are asking for preferential treatment in hiring by the fire department as a remedy for past discrimination are white applicants to the fire department necessary parties?

Glueck (NY) sues Company (Cal. ) in federal court in California to have Company reissue shares currently held by Haas (NY) in Glueck and Haas’s name. is there a problem. . . ?

(b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include: (1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by: (A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the relief; or (C) other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

Torrington v. Yost (D. S. C. 1991)

Rule 24. Intervention (a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

African-Americans who have been refused employment by a fire department are suing the city for racial discrimination in hiring they are asking for preferential treatment in hiring by the fire department as a remedy for past discrimination may the white firefighters (or white applicants to the fire department) who would be affected by this relief intervene of right? would there be any conditions on their intervention?

what if the white firefighters do not intervene?

42 U. S. C. § 2000 e-2(n)

(B) A practice described in subparagraph (A) may not be challenged in a claim under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws— (i) by a person who, prior to the entry of the judgment or order described in subparagraph (A), had— (I) actual notice of the proposed judgment or order sufficient to apprise such person that such judgment or order might adversely affect the interests and legal rights of such person and that an opportunity was available to present objections to such judgment or order by a future date certain; and (II) a reasonable opportunity to present objections to such judgment or order;

P wants to build a dump in some wetlands the Army Corp of Engineers refuses to issue a permit P sues the Army Corp of Engineers may people who live by the wetlands intervene on the side of the government?

(b) Permissive Intervention. (1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. .