An action under those statutes must be conducted under these rules. As amended Dec. The first paragraph provides for interpleader relief along the newer and more liberal lines of joinder in the alternative.
It avoids the confusion and restrictions that developed around actions of strict interpleader and actions in the nature of interpleader.
Kegan et al. It does not change the rules on service of process, jurisdiction, and venue, as established by judicial decision. The second paragraph allows an action to be brought under the recent interpleader statute when applicable. Joinder became easier. Problems remained. Clark, Code Pleading , 2d ed. A case, decided as late as , illustrates these difficulties. In Ader v. Blau , N.
The cause of action for negligence against the first defendant was for maintaining an attractive nuisance on which a boy hurt himself; the cause of action against the second defendant was for medical malpractice in treating the injuries. The decision was that parties and causes of action were misjoined since the causes of action did not arise out of the same transaction and they did not affect all the parties. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, promulgated in , adopted the reforms of the codes and went further.
Because the drafters were able to identify the problem areas that had developed in joinder under the codes, they were able to eliminate many of the problems. Joinder of both theories of recovery and of parties became easier. This increased ease of joinder was tongue-in-groove with the new role of pleading.
Pleading under the common law and the codes served four functions: 1 giving the opponent and the judge notice of the nature of the claim or defense , 2 weeding out groundless claims or defenses , 3 revealing the facts of the case, and 4 narrowing the issues.
See Exercise Three, part I. Pleading under the Federal Rules was designed primarily to give the opponent notice and to leave the functions of revealing facts, narrowing issues, and weeding out meritless claims to discovery. Similarly, joinder was designed to promote broad convenience and judicial economy, and to leave problems of confusion that such joinder might create to devices such as separation and severance for trial.
See Fed. A panoply of joinder devices is available under the Federal Rules. In fact, the number of devices and the similarity of some of the names of the devices can cause confusion. As a consequence, a person studying federal joinder must be sure to keep the various devices separate. The task may seem daunting at first, but understanding the purpose of each joinder device should greatly reduce the difficulty.
This section provides the names and brief descriptions of all of the devices. The Federal Rules joinder devices are the following:.
As part I. A discussed, the passage of years has brought more generous joinder. With this loosening of restrictions on the joinder devices themselves, attention in the field of joinder—at least in the federal courts—has shifted from the joinder devices to questions of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Or a defendant may be allowed as a matter of joinder to assert a state law cross-claim against a co-defendant, but why is a federal court allowed to adjudicate the state law claim? The federal courts created two common law doctrines that expanded their jurisdictional reach over joined claims and parties: pendent jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction.
Both of these common law doctrines have been subsumed into the statutory doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction. Pendent jurisdiction allowed a plaintiff who asserted a federal question claim to add on, or append, additional state law theories of recovery arising out of the same facts as the federal claim.
Assume, for example, plaintiff had been fired by her employer, and wished to assert three theories of recovery against defendant: a civil rights violation under Title VII, a breach of contract under state law, and the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law.
This three-count complaint could be filed in state court. Could all three counts be brought into federal court? Yes, said pendent jurisdiction. The pendent state law theories were limited to those factually intertwined with the federal law theory.
In the example above, plaintiff could bring a three-count complaint for 1 Title VII violation, 2 breach of employment contract, and 3 intentional infliction of emotional distress. While pendent jurisdiction assisted plaintiffs, ancillary jurisdiction assisted defendants. A defendant properly brought into federal court was allowed by the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction to assert any claims it had that arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original, jurisdictionally-proper claim.
Thus, for example, a defendant was allowed to assert a compulsory counterclaim against the plaintiff because a compulsory counterclaim by definition arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim.
Operation of ancillary jurisdiction in most cases became quite mechanical. The test for ancillary jurisdiction was whether the joined claim arose out of the same transaction or occurrence.
The same test was found in many of the joinder devices. Therefore, when the joinder device was satisfied, ancillary jurisdiction was satisfied. Ancillary jurisdiction covered compulsory counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims, and intervention of right; it did not cover permissive counterclaims and permissive intervention. Therefore, merger of the two doctrines became sensible. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
In later sections of this exercise, we will explore this statute in depth and apply it in a wide variety of joinder situations. We will see that it is not a paragon of legislative drafting and has several unintended consequences.
It brings together pendent jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction into the new doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction. It creates pendent party jurisdiction in the last sentence of paragraph a. It restricts the use of supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases in paragraph b so as not to tread on the doctrine of complete diversity.
Consequently, any joinder question requires a series of analytical steps. The first step is to determine whether the joinder device permits the joinder. The second step is to determine whether the federal court has independent subject matter jurisdiction over the claim or party to be joined. When the federal court has independent jurisdiction, this second step is satisfied. When, however, the federal court does not have independent jurisdiction over the added claim or party, then the supplemental jurisdiction statute must be consulted.
If so, and federal jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity, the analysis is at an end. If the federal jurisdictional basis is diversity, then a fourth step is required. As can be seen, only the first step involves operation of the actual joinder device. As stated previously, the common law sharply restricted joinder of claims in its search for a single issue in an action. The codes broadened claim joinder by enumerating several possibilities for joinder, but the courts became caught up in technical and narrow definitions of the terms in those statutes.
The Federal Rules removed any possible questions about joinder of claims. That means a plaintiff who has a conglomeration of totally unrelated claims against a defendant may join them all in one action—although Federal Rule 10 suggests strongly that unrelated claims be stated in separate counts. It means also that other parties who properly bring a transactionally-related claim, such as a counterclaim or a cross-claim, are able to add unrelated claims.
Should a confusing mess result, the solution of the rules is to allow the court to use its discretion under Federal Rule 42 b to order separate trials. Joinder of claims is not a pleading problem; it is a trial problem. A party may choose either to add another claim, or to save it for a later lawsuit.
A party choosing the latter course must be wary of the preclusion doctrines. Should the unasserted matter actually be part of the same claim asserted in the first suit, it would be lost under the doctrine of claim preclusion res judicata.
Even should the unasserted matter truly be a separate claim, one or more common issues may be litigated and decided in the first lawsuit, raising the possibility of issue preclusion collateral estoppel. See Exercise Eleven. What about the situation when plaintiff has two factually unrelated claims against defendant?
A defendant may assert a counterclaim against plaintiff. A plaintiff may assert a counterclaim against a counterclaiming defendant. A third-party defendant may counterclaim against a third-party plaintiff. The roots of counterclaim practice can be found in the common law. The practices of recoupment and setoff were available, but each had limitations. Setoff was created in equity to remedy these weaknesses of recoupment.
Yet setoff had its own weaknesses: the claim to be set off had to be liquidated or subject to ready computation. The right of setoff had to be mutual. Most importantly, since setoff was an equitable procedure, the circumstances had to call for the action of equity.
For example, when A and B owed each other money, and A sued B for the debt, B could use setoff only when A was insolvent; otherwise B could bring a separate action. The codes invented the counterclaim.
Typically, they limited its use to situations where the counterclaim arose from the same transaction, or from the same contract, as the claim. The Federal Rules create two types of counterclaims: compulsory counterclaims and permissive counterclaims. A compulsory counterclaim is a counterclaim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim. It is not tied to legal theories or defenses. When cars driven by A and B collide, and then driver B gets out of his car and punches driver A, this presents one transaction or occurrence only one event , not one for negligence and another for battery.
Clearly, the transaction or occurrence is close kin to the claim for relief [ see Exercise Three, part I. Unfortunately, many federal courts have felt a need to gloss the rule. Courts that look to a single set of facts follow the language of the rule, not an unnecessary addition.
The logical relationship standard may make sense for the more difficult decision of when to tie transactions together into the same claim, as is sometimes necessary to decide for a question of joinder of parties [ see part II.
See Douglas D. A compulsory counterclaim that is not stated is lost, although courts vary on the theory of loss, some using preclusion, others using an estoppel, and others using a sanction for violation of the rules. The Federal Rules define a permissive counterclaim by exclusion. A permissive counterclaim is any counterclaim that is not compulsory. Since by definition the permissive counterclaim does not involve the same subject matter as the claim, little efficiency is lost.
A party choosing not to bring a permissive counterclaim must at the same time be careful that it is not lost through the operation of issue preclusion; to the extent that the counterclaim has an issue or issues in common with the claim, the decision on that issue in the litigation of the claim may well be preclusive in a later, separate action on the counterclaim.
See Exercise Eleven, part II. Prior to the enactment of supplemental jurisdiction, the law in the area was clear. Compulsory counterclaims, arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, qualified for ancillary jurisdiction; permissive counterclaims, not arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, did not qualify for ancillary jurisdiction. Compulsory counterclaims ride into federal court on supplemental jurisdiction. Permissive counterclaims do not. Compulsory counterclaim.
By definition, a compulsory counterclaim, because it must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, is part of the same Article III case or controversy. A counterclaim is asserted under Rule A compulsory counterclaim is carried into federal court by supplemental jurisdiction. Permissive counterclaim. By definition, a permissive counterclaim, because it does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, is not part of the same Article III case or controversy.
The crossclaim traces back into the equity courts, which allowed a party to assert a cross-bill against another party. This procedure found its way into the federal equity rules of Many code states adopted the procedure, usually renaming the device a cross-complaint.
See Jack H. The Federal Rules carried forward the possibility of asserting a claim against another party to the action, either as a counterclaim against an opposing party or as a crossclaim against a coparty.
Or a crossclaim is by one plaintiff against another plaintiff. For example, assume plaintiff A and plaintiff B sue defendant C and defendant D. C could crossclaim against D since they are coparties. A might then plead a crossclaim against B perhaps for indemnity. First, a crossclaim is a claim against a coparty. Second, a crossclaim is always permissive. The concept of transaction or occurrence means in its essence the same set of operative facts [ see II.
Allowing parties to add factually related claims to an existing action makes efficient sense for the court; allowing the addition of unrelated claims to an existing action would serve no efficiency purpose.
That is why a crossclaim must be part of the same transaction or occurrence. This reasoning is undercut somewhat, however, by the fact that once a party is able to plead a crossclaim, the party is then able to add other, completely unrelated claims to the same action. This is so because of the broad federal joinder of claims rule, which allows the joinder of all claims against a party. See II. Prior to the enactment of supplemental jurisdiction, crossclaims qualified for ancillary jurisdiction because by rule they are required to arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the claim, and the same transaction or occurrence was also the test for ancillary jurisdiction.
Supplemental jurisdiction exists. It provides supplemental jurisdiction does not exist in diversity cases when joinder is accomplished under certain enumerated rules. Rule 13 g is not on the list. Consequently, crossclaims will always be covered by supplemental jurisdiction.
Third-party practice is commonly called impleader, and the two terms are synonymous. A person must remember that impleader is used by a party to bring a person not a party a third party into the action, intervention is used by a person not a party to the action to force his way into the action, and interpleader is used by a person subject to multiple claims to the same property to force all claimants to assert those claims in a single action.
A judgment against the original defendant would then also be conclusive on the vouched in party. The weakness of this procedure was that the original defendant was still required to bring a second, separate action against the vouched in party to obtain a judgment. Third-party practice was adopted by several of the code states, and subsequently by the Federal Rules. The advantage of third-party practice lies in this example. Plaintiff consumer sues defendant retailer for selling a defective product.
The retailer can defend the action, and—should it lose—later sue the manufacturer of the product in a separate action. When the retailer wins that second action, the manufacturer ultimately pays the damages.
The retailer is removed from the middle. Drawbacks exist with this plan, however. First, inconsistent results might occur: the jury in the first action may decide the product was defective, and the jury in the second action may decide the product was not defective. Second, delay results. The retailer might have to pay the first judgment years before the second case proceeds to judgment. Even worse, during the time lag the statute of limitations on the second action might expire.
Third, the retailer will incur the expense of litigating two separate actions. Impleader removes these problems. By impleading the manufacturer into the original action, the retailer removes the possibility of inconsistent results since the same jury will decide the entire action. Judgment will be entered on both the original claim and the third-party claim at the same time, so no delay results. Both claims will be determined in the same litigation, so little added expense will result.
Prior to the general, plainer English, re-writing of the Federal Rules in , the third-party practice rule was one large, complicated paragraph. The amendment broke the rule into several smaller, more understandable parts.
Even so, in order to assist understanding third-party practice, we parse out each sentence of the rule. Here are the relevant portions of Federal Rule 14 a , interspersed with our comments in italics. A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it. A claim against a co-party is a crossclaim.
This language also contains the most important thing to remember about the joinder device: impleader liability must be derivative. Impleader is not a device to offer up an alternative defendant to the plaintiff. For example, plaintiff homeowner sues defendant waterproofing company because the basement continues to leak. Defendant can implead the manufacturer of the waterproof paint it used. That is derivative liability. Defendant cannot implead the architect of the house on the theory that the fault lies in the house design instead of the waterproofing job.
In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff is referred to as the plaintiff-in-interpleader and each claimant a claimant-in-interpleader. An interpleader proceeding has two stages. The first stage determines if the stakeholder is entitled to an interpleader and if he, she or it should be discharged from liability.
The second stage is like an action at law to determine which of the claimants is entitled to the res. The stakeholder no longer has to spend the time or money fighting over ownership of the res and the parties have a forum to fight among themselves in court. There are requirements before interpleader will lie and the relief is available in Federal Court if the other jurisdictional requirements are met and all fifty states, though there are variations in methods in the various states.
At common law, the bill of interpleader required:. A typical interpleader action occurs when two or more parties make a claim on an insurance policy and the insurance company has no wish to become involved in the fight and interpleads the policy with the court and asks the court to remove it from the matter. Another example is that an escrow holder in a real estate transaction holds a deposit and the parties are arguing about whether one or the other should receive the deposit back.
In this manner, what is an Impleader action? Impleader is a procedural device before trial in which one party joins a third party into a lawsuit because that third party is liable to an original defendant. This complaint alleges that the third party is liable for all or part of the damages that the original plaintiff may win from the original defendant.
Beside above, is Impleader compulsory? If the defendant misses the day deadline, Rule 14 requires the defendant obtain permission from the court to implead the third party. If submitted on time, the case becomes compulsory ; the court must allow the impleader. Joinder can add parties or claims that are relevant to the action, impleader is when the defendant in a case is becoming a third party plaintiff by bringing in a new party and saying that they are liable to said defendant for the action being brought against them.
Adding a Defendant to a Case Is Called a Joinder A plaintiff can add a defendant under the permissive joinder rule when he or she can prove that the claim against the new defendant arises out of the same events and involves the same legal questions as the suit against the primary defendant.
Impleader : The third party becomes a participant in the lawsuit and is known as a third party defendant. Interpleader : Interpleader occurs when a third party enters into a lawsuit, usually to determine that party's rights with regard to property at issue in the lawsuit.
What is a Rule 22? The cloture rule—Rule 22—is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter.
Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.
0コメント