|
|
|||||
|
|
|
COMPLEX LITIGATION: JOINDER Claims by the Defendant—Counterclaims R13a: Compulsory Counterclaims: arises out of the transaction or occurrence · Transaction or occurrence: design, maintenance, construction (∏=related) · Jurisdictional component: must be able establish subj matter jurisdiction ∏ß ∆
R13b: Permissive Counterclaims · Ex. sued for tort but can also sue for defamation · Can arise out of anything
R13g: Crossclaims · One party against a co-party ∏à∆ ↓ 3d party ∆
R14: similar to R13g ∏à∆ 3d party ∏ ↓ 3d party ∆
R18a: claims b: remedies R19: parties that are feasible b)indispensable parties (end pt of analysis) R20: parties b: separate trials R42: consolidation b: separate trials
Indemnification: relationship betw parties based on a contractual basis—such as insured/insurer relationship Contribution: situation of J/S liability where each apportioned degree of liability
Plant v. Blazer Financial Services (5th Cir. 1979) Disclosures · Four part test to determine whether a claim/counterclaim arise from the same transaction: (1) Are the issues of fact/law raised by the claim/counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as defendant’s counterclaim? (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim (that arises from the same “aggregate of operative facts”? · HELD: The debt counterclaim was compulsory because the obvious interrelationship of the claims/rights or the parties, coupled with the common factual basis of the claims demonstrates a logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim. · obvious motion to make would be R11—must serve first/have 21 days or R12b6 · Motion for 12b6: asserts defensive collateral estoppel—would be asserting that issue of fraud which has been established, which would invalidate the K and then out(Blazer is estopped (claim/issue preclusion); matter has been adjudicated so then out · LESSON: must establish that in order to have a compulsory counterclaim, the event arises out of the same transaction or occurrence (notion of commonality seen in R23a2 also); (2) risk of litigating—claim preclusion (permissive counterclaims require an indep juris basis—need to have established 1331 or 1332) (3) judge tries to take advantage of the vague relationship betw commonality
Joinder of Parties—by Plaintiffs Mosley v. General Motors Corp. (8th Cir. 1974) Discrimination—Negroes/Females · R20a: All persons may join in one action as ∏s if they assert ANY right to relief jointly, severally…or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences or if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action. · HELD: The severance of joinder of the plaintiffs was an abuse of discretion by the trial court because (1) the company-wide policy purportedly designed to discriminate against blacks in employment similarly arises out or the same series of transactions or occurrences and (2) A(does not require all) question of law or fact that is common to all the parties will arise in the action. · Survive R20a bc it is a company-wide policy (FN—R23: every instance of discrimination is different—commonality rendered difficult) · No qualitative or quantitative test—not bright light categories · LESSON: what it takes to multiple parties in R20: (1) commonality—same question of law or fact (2) same transaction or occurrence
Standards of Review: Law: de novo—plenary Fact: clearly erroneous/harmless error (deferential to dist ct) Discretion: deferential to dist ct
Watergate Landmark Condominium Unit Owners’ Assn’ v. Wiss, Janey, Elstner Associates (ED Va. 1987) Balcony Construction · Assn sued the engineering firm and the real estate mgmt firm, but not the waterproofers who actually performed the repairs in accordance with the engineering firms’ specifications · HELD: Third-party claims are not permissible in the absence of derivative or secondary liability. · SCt can grant 12b6 bc Brisk isn’t derivatively liable—theory of proof fails bc of admission of nonnegligence/theory of the move fails · R14 permits impleader only where the substantive law permits the def to pass on liability to another party · Impleading party need not show liability conclusively only that it may be liable · LESSON: for indemnification to work with Leg, then need a contractual relationship with a 3d party (insurer) (impleader works if Leg asserts 13g/14 that Brisk and Wiss are J/S) so instead it is a theory of contribution, but fails bc only asserted sole liability o FN: req in 1332—amt of controversy: compulsory counterclaims should count in calculating the amt in controversy o R14: Grace impleads Unifirst on J/S liability
More Complex Litigation Supplemental Jurisdiction--§1367 (1) constitutional power under AIII, §2; (2) statutory grant of jurisdiction over the related claim; (3) discretionary factors allow the court to decide if it will be granted—(a) novel or complex issue of State law (b) claim substantially predominates (c) dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction (d) exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons to decline
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger (1978) Wrongful Death—Tractor · HELD: Supplemental jurisdiction did not extend to a claim asserted by a plaintiff against a nondiverse third party defendant. · Once the impleaded party became nondiverse, the action could not be pursued in federal court, but could be brought into state court. · OPPD impleads Owen(Nebraska) R14; Learn at trial that Owen PPB is Iowa—dual citizenship destroys diversity; Owen files 12b1; court reserves judgment and allows a R15 amendment; Kroger/Owen are left—nondiverse (does the district ct have power over the case? No) · Drafted to be J/S liability; but the R56 has the effect of passing liability on · Crucial move—R15a to bring in Owen bc afraid OPPD will be bounced out and if Kroger didn’t bring Owen in, then the case would be shot · SCT: in order for the case to proceed, need ind subj matter jurs under 1331 or 1332 · LESSON: fed cts req an indep subj matter jurs under 1331 or 1332 or it will be dropped o Grace impleads Unifirst; Anderson amends to add Unifirst; Grace gets 56 granted; leaves two nondiverse parties o Would ct retain under 1367(a)—no; 1367(b) over claims by persons made parties under R14, 19, 20, 24 when exercising suppl jurs over the claim--no
Helzberg’s Diamond Shops v. Valley West Des Moines Shopping Ctr. (8th Cir. 1977) Jewelry Stores · HELD: There will be no prejudice if Lords is not named to the suit bc it voluntarily executed the leases and could have intervened if thought to have had an interest. · A party does not become indispensable to an action to determine rights and obligations under a K simply bc that party’s rights and obligations under an entirely separate K will be affected by the decision. o (1) How do you conduct fact investigation in a situation where there might be good faith disputes? o (2) how could you avoid a R11 violation? R11(b)(3) · Analysis: (1) prejudice (2) how could relief be shaped to lessen prejudice (3) adequate judgment (4) adequate remedy for the plaintiff
Finley v. United States (9th Cir. 1989) Plane Crash/FTCA · HELD: A grant of jurisdiction over claims involving particular parties does not itself confer jurisdiction over additional claims by or against different parties…Because the FTCA permits the Gov’t to be sued only in federal court, our holding that parties to related claims cannot necessarily be sued there means that the efficiency and convenience of a consolidated action will sometimes have to be forgone in favor of separate actions in state and federal courts. · Wrongful death action tort suit brought against in-state defendants, then brought against the US under the FTCA, which provides fed courts must have exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under the FTCA · Pendent-party jurisdiction=jurisdiction over parties not named in any claim that is independently cognizable by the federal court · 1367 analysis (pre-1367case): R20: should allow joinder of parties bc from same transaction or occurrence and common law or fact; have fed questions; claims are related to form part of the same C/C; but FAA might make a 12b1 arguing under 1367c2 that state claims predominate or 1367c4 bc have compelling reasons to decline bc of nature of FTCA · Zahn: p550; Aldinger: Kroger etc
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
