CivPro_Reynolds_2 - I Basic Joinder of Claims and Parties...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
I. Basic Joinder of Claims and Parties - The uniting of claims or parties in a lawsuit – this is done to (1) determine the scope of litigation (whom to sue, which claims to assert), and (2) to ensure that all claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence are litigated and resolves at once (efficiency). A. FRCP 20(a) – Multiple Plaintiffs and Defendants – Authorizes P’s to sue together if: 1. the right to recover must be joint, several, or in the alternative they assert claims arising out of the same transaction a. logically related b. similar evidence c. prejudice vs. efficiency 2. their claims against the D or Ds will involve a common question of law or fact (However, this is at the discretion of the P) General Point - This allows P to sue multiple Ds in a single action if same criteria are met 3. Apache County vs. Superior Court – County in Arizona tries to recoup hospital losses from other jurisdictions, court holds that claims do not arise out of the same occurrence – failed same evidence test – (294 separate Ds) – Attempt to join the same Ds 4. Alexander vs. Fulton County – White Cops sue for racism – Court holds that since all Ps claims stem from the same allegation – subject to the same systemic pattern of racism – the suit can go forward even though there may be 19 Ps. – Joining the same Ps 5. “Pattern or practice” can also be defined as the same transaction (Mosley vs. GM) B. FRCP 13(a) and (b) – Compulsory and Permissive Counterclaims C. This rule is strictly for efficiency’s sake – try to litigate all the items arising out of transaction at once D. Compulsory - If a defending party’s counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the claim against him, it is compulsory, he must assert it or lose it – P and D are in car accident, everything must be claimed by P in regards to accident 1. Exceptions: a. Just adjudication requires presence of additional parties whom the court cannot get personal jurisdiction b. Claims by D in which the suit against D is in rem or res judicata c. Permissive – usually involves different events from the main transaction, but D may raise it against party 1. Claim could have nothing to do with the principal action that occurred 2. Simmons vs. Simmons – Divorcing couple – should tort claim be included in divorce proceedings – causes of action stem from different transactions – Why? (1) efficiency test (2) Does not arise out of the same transaction – would be different w/o kids. 3. FRCP 13(g) – Cross-Claims – A claim asserted by one party against a co-party – on the same side as D vs. D. These claims are (1) Not compulsory (2) Can fall within supplemental Jurisdiction. The claim must meet two requirements: a. It must have arisen out of the same transaction or occurrence that is subject of the original action b. Party must ask for actual relief c. Rainbow Management Group vs. Atlantis Subs – Boat and sub collide – Passenger sues both P and D, D files a cross claim, but P never responds. P then files suit against
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/03/2010 for the course LAW 28465 taught by Professor Carson during the Fall '09 term at University of Texas.

Page1 / 39

CivPro_Reynolds_2 - I Basic Joinder of Claims and Parties...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online