1 / 16


CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 17. Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Oct 3, 2003. FRCP 19: COMPULSORY JOINDER. Some parties MUST be joined Class actions are an exception: 19(d) Old distinction:

Download Presentation


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 17 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Oct 3, 2003

  2. FRCP 19: COMPULSORY JOINDER • Some parties MUST be joined • Class actions are an exception: 19(d) • Old distinction: • A. Necessary parties - should join if feasible BUT failure to join will not result in dismissal of action • B. Indispensable parties - MUST join these parties. Failure to join results in dismissal of action

  3. RULE 19(a): WHO MUST BE JOINED IF FEASIBLE? • Parties w/overlapping interest in property: 19(a)(2)(ii) • Persons with an interest that the action may legally/practically impair : 19(a)(2)(i) • Persons who, if not parties to action, make it impossible for court to grant complete relief to existing parties: 19(a)(1) • As a general rule parties to a contract must be joined in an action where a contract is being construed.

  4. HOW DOES A PARTY CHALLENGE A PARTY’S ABSENCE UNDER RULE 19? • Opposing party can move to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(7) motion • Is failure to join an indispensable party under 12(b)(7) a waivable defense? • Court can also order joinder sua sponte - at trial or on appeal.

  5. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO JOIN AN ABSENT PARTY WHO SATISFIES 19(a) • Party must be joined if feasible • Court will order joinder if feasible - court will not initially dismiss action for misjoinder • What if it is not feasible to join that party?

  6. FRCP 19(b): WHERE JOINDER IS NOT FEASIBLE • Joinder might not be feasible because it would defeat diversity jurisdiction, or court can’t obtain personal jurisdiction over the absent party or absent party has a valid venue objection • In this case, what should the court do?

  7. FACTORS THE COURT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT UNDER 19(b) • 1. Potential prejudice of proceeding wihtout a person e.g. inconsistent judgments • 2. Possibility of avoiding adverse consequences by shaping relief • 3. Adequacy of judgment in person’s absence • 4. Availability of another forum where P can get relief

  8. ADDING ADDITIONAL CLAIMS BY COUNTERCLAIM/CROSS-CLAIM • SEE FRCP 13 • These are additional claims made by parties to the action

  9. COUNTERCLAIMS • What is a counterclaim? What provisions of the FRCP govern counterclaims? • What are the two kinds of counterclaims?

  10. PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIMS • What provision of the FRCP governs permissive counterclaims? • What is the test for when a counterclaim will be permissive? • How does a defendant assert a permissive counterclaim?

  11. COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS • What provision of the FRCP governs? • A counterclaim is not compulsory UNLESS _______________ [please fill in the blank] • Different standards: significant logical relationship (broadest), overlap in evidence (less broad) • EXCEPTIONS

  12. EXCEPTIONS • 1. Party had counterclaim that would otherwise be compulsory but never filed responsive pleading (e.g. successful 12(b)(6) motion) • 2. Counterclaim doesn’t mature until after pleading served • 3. Court lacks jurisdiction over indispensable third parties that would have to be joined for counterclaim • 4. Counterclaim is subject of a pending lawsuit • 5. Where plaintiff’s complaint rests on court’s in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction • 6. In some cases, where D who has been sued for injunction or equitable claims seeks money damages in counterclaim

  13. FAILURE TO ASSERT A COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM • What happens if a COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM is not asserted? • BUT see FRCP 13(f) and 15(a) • What happens if a PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM is not asserted?

  14. BANQUE INDOSUIEZ V. TRIFINERY p. 324 CB • State or federal court? • D executed promissory note payable to P and guaranteed by B • D do not dispute liability under the note • P argues that D owes P money and seeks summary judgment • What does D argue? • What does P argue in response?

  15. BANQUE INDOSUEZ CONT’D • Why does the court hold that it is unfair to enforce a contractual waiver of D’s counterclaim IF that counterclaim is compulsory -- even where under the applicable N.Y. law such contracts of waiver are enforceable? Note that in NY all counterclaims are permissive (NY CPLR section 3019) • Does the court find D’s counterclaim compulsory or permissive? Why?

  16. CROSS-CLAIMS • What is a cross-claim? • What provision of the FRCP governs cross-claims? • Are cross-claims compulsory? • Can any cross-claim be brought? • How are cross-claims different and similar to counterclaims?

More Related