Joinder Flowchart - Summary Civil Procedure

Rule 13 (A) compulsory issues (use it or lose it) Rules 13 (B) You don’t have to raise counterclaim Rule 13 (g) Rule 17 Rule 18 Rule 20 CNOOF Rule 22 Rule 24 Rule 13 (A) Compulsory- if you don’t bring it you love it, must state any countercliam at the time of service 1. Arising of the same transaction or occurance 2. Exceptions when subject to another action - If you don’t use it, you’’ll lose it (B) Peremissive- any thing that is not compulsory 1. Up to the deendant to decided if there are other cliams related to that plaintiff and bring them 2. If they’re not based on the same occurance or issue, you don’t have to bring it and you wont lose 1. Is there something to piggy bag on? If so then it is supplemental jurisdiction. 2. If there isn’t something to piggyback on, then it’s subject matter jurisdiction. 1367(A) has to arise form the common nucleus of nuclear fact 1367 (B) breaks diversity out of the lawsuit 1. Did the original lawsuit get into federal court using diversity? If it is a federal question (supplemental is always allowed) If the defendant is using the joinder rule, supplemental is allowed for rule 14,19,20, 24 (joinder of party) 2. Claim vs party joinder - Rule 14 joinder of parties - Rule 18 joinder of claims - Rule 19 joinder of parties - Rule 20 joinder of party - Rule 24 joinder of party 1. What is needed for 13 (A) Must bring counterclaim or lose it. When the controversy arises from the same transition or occurrences or series Use it or lose it Example: (A crashes into B)(B sues A) (A wants to countersue for negligence) Compulsory- if the A didn’t bring counterclaim under 13(A) , she would not be able to sue her claim after losing the suit. If it has the same transaction or occurrence is similar to CNOOF (Common Nuclease of Operative fact) Every time we use 13A, we get to use supplemental jurisdiction 2. What is needed for 13 (B) Can bring the claim later. Permissive is when it doesn’t arise out of the same transaction or occurrence No CNOOF, so no supplemental jurisdiction. To use a 13 (B) joinder of claims, we have to have an independent basis (would have qualified for federal system on its own) Always have to use subject matter, supplemental never allowed 3. What is needed for 13 (G) Cross claim? 2 plaintiffs suing a defendant can crossclaim Same transaction or occurrence Supplemental is always allowed 4. Rule 14 (A) Non-party A nonparty fully responsible for the defendant An Indemnity, contribution, etc. Joint and Severally liable When they point the lawsuit at someone else You can’t join an unrelated lawsuit has to be CNOOF Sometimes allows supplemental Looking at the original plaintiff 5. Rule 20 Either same T/o or JSA Or CNOOF JSA implicates in aggregation rule, you don’t have to look at canoof 6. Aggregate Claims A. You can aggregate claims when one plaintiff sues one defendant B. You can aggregate claims when one plaintiff sues multiple defendants when the claims arise from the same T/O for the amount in controversy ONLY if there is joint or several liability C. If there is no joint or several liability, it does not implicate aggregation rules. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is determined claim by claim Supplemental- one claim qualifies for subject matter jurisdiction and another doesn’t 1367 A. A.) grants jurisdiction except as taken away in (B) and (C) B.) takes away jurisdiction based on the nature of the jurisdictionally good claim and the use of certain joinder rules, it doesn’t make someone else a party - Is jurisdiction found only under 1332 (state law claim basically if you’re using supplemental jurisdiction) - It has to be a claim against a person made a party C.) Takes away jurisdiction based upon GIBBS like discretionary factors - When they join and they have complete diversity, but one party doesn’t meet the amount in controversy, 1367 let the party join - When they join and they don’t have diversity, but it allows them to make it. Joinder May or may not allow a certain rule or claim to be allowed Even if the rules allow a claim to be joined is there subject matter jurisdiction \ Joinder rule 20 When Plaintiffs can join Plaintiffs can join together in one action if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alterative, with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, - AND a question of law or fact common to all defendants - No aggregate claim for amount of controversy Defendant may be joined together in one action if any right to relief Is asserted - AND a question of law or fact common to all defendants Joinder rule 42 (A) & (b) It allows the court to consolidate things of a common law or fact, consolidate the actions for efficiency Jurisdictional Aspects of Joinder Permissive