Unrelated in Interest Doctrine and Adding a Party to a Lawsuit

United in Interest Doctrine CPLR 203 (c). • Relation Back talks about adding claims, United in Interest talks about adding parties. a bit different, but the same idea. • What this tells us is that essentially there is a 3-part test from the Buran v. Coupal case: Buran v. Coupal (Ct. of Appeals) • In order to use the Unrelated in Interest Doctrine you have to satisfy ALL the parts of the 3-parts test. • Adding a party is more difficult than adding a claim. do then UII • Here is how you do UII. Relation Back is easier to – OK to add a party if, here are the 3 things: 1. You have to establish that the Claim versus the new party that you want to add arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, as the original claim or against the original party. AND 2. New party is “united in interest” with old party so by the reason of that, the new party can be charged with knowledge of lawsuit and therefore there is no prejudice, AND 3. New party knows/knew or should have known that but for mistake she would have been named in original complaint or claim. NOTE: the mistake does not have to be ▪ and important here excusable. ▪ NOTE 2: When we do accelerated judgment section CPLR 5015, you will notice that one of the bases for vacating a default judgment is excusable default, you do not have to show an excuse for this, this is just but for a mistake. LET’S GO BACK TO PART 2 OF THIS 3-PART TEST *Definition of UII = *What do we mean by United in Interest? That itself is a 3-part test. So, you are going to plug the definition of the UII into number 2 part of the overall 3-part test. 1. Interest in the Subject Matter is such that the party stand or fall together. ▪ Example: The professor is the P in a personal injury action that he brings against the owner and the driver of the car. And because of vicarious liability the owner is on the hook for whatever the driver did, assuming the driver was operating the vehicle with the owner’s permission and consent of the owner. The interest and the subject matter or the outcome of the P case is such that the owner and the driver stand with fault together. Makes sense, because if the driver goes down, then the owner will go down with him. So they stand at fault together. If the driver wins then the owner wins, HOWEVER, it does not work and they will not be UII if the owner says “that she never gave permission to the driver to drive the car” if that is the case then this ruins the UII Doctrine. AND 2. Judgment against one will similarly affect the other. if you have a judgment against the owner then it will affect the driver OR vice versa. AND 3. The New defendant to be added cannot have separate or different defenses then the original defendant. ▪ So, the new defendant to be added has the same defenses as did the old defendant. You cannot add stuff. If you add stuff, then you are not UII. ▪ Again, if the owner says, “that she never gave permission to the driver to drive the car” and that defense is born out. ▪ There is a presumption of permissive use, therefore, you need evidence to rebut that presumption, and if it is rebutted then there is no UII, but otherwise there will be, because most of the time the owners of the car state that they did not give permission to the driver, so the owner can get off the hook. ▪ Also, in some situations where there is an employer and employee. Under vicarious liability they will stand or fall together, judgment against one is going to be similarly affect against the other. And they are going to have the same defenses. * If you satisfy these 3-part of the BURAN TEST, including the UII, which itself has a 3part test, then you can add a party. This is important because, let’s look back at the Burman case. ▪ There was an action regarding real property, it was an adverse possession action. ▪ And the P sued the husband and not the wife. ▪ The husband and the wife owned the property by tenants by entirety. And the P by mistake only sued the husband and not the wife. So, the SOL against the wife has expired for the adverse possession action. but they wanted to bring in the wife anyway. And they succeeded because the wife was UII with the husband. ▪ So, kike the Relation Back Doctrine, the legal gymnastics that are being done here is for intensive purposes, they are saying that a claim against a party who is UII is interposed at the time you brought the action against the old party )the first party, the one who has already been sued). So, even though the SOL has expired against the new party (wife) it does not matter because the wife is united in interest with the old party (husband) who is already in the action. it is sort of a relation back.