Civil
Procedure Class Notes
We
have very few days left! We have this
week, then we don’t meet at all next week. Then the first week of December is
weird. We’ll meet four times, but not
the normal days. Then we meet two more
times the next week.
Yesterday,
we did a lot. We did an introduction to
pleading and the basic standard of notice pleading and the exception of heightened
pleading. Rule 11 requires you to do
more than Rule 8 requires you to do in your complaint, which may lead to
conflicts. Having examined the complaint
stage, we blasted through the preanswer/answer
stage. This was review because we had
already looked at the 12(b) motions. If
you don’t do a preanswer motion, then you have to
answer. Your answer includes denials,
affirmative defenses, and counterclaims.
As
to denials, Rule 8(b) says that you have to make denials line-by-line and
paragraph-by-paragraph.
As
to affirmative defenses, statute of limitations is the most frequent one we’ve
encountered, but there are plenty of other ones.
Now
we’re going to do joinder of parties.
Joinder
Rule 19 tells us
that some people have to join.
Rule 20 tells us
that joinder is permissible in that any plaintiff can join if they assert any
right to relief arising from the same claim.
Defendants
may be joined under basically the same standard. It’s basically reciprocal. This reflects a liberal idea of getting as
many people into the lawsuit as needed.
A
hypothetical
Herman
is the driver and Wilma is a passenger. Their
car collides with a car driven by Dillon and owned by Owens.
Can
Herman and Wilma join under Rule 20 to sue Dillon? Sure!
What is the basis for their joinder?
It’s the same accident! If Dillon
is at fault for this accident, then whatever claim Wilma has, Herman has too.
What
if Herman wanted to sue Dillon the driver and Owens the owner? Can both of those parties be joined under Rule 20 as defendants? You can as long as the defendants arise out
of the same transaction or occurrence.
Why would we want to have all these parties in the same lawsuit? It’s much more efficient to have everybody
lodge their crossing allegations in one forum and get it all resolved at once
if you can.
What
about Herman suing Dillon and General Motors?
Will that be allowed? Sure, it’s
allowed under Rule
20(a). The claims will be decidedly
different between Dillon and General Motors.
Say
Herman goes to try to settle the claim with Dillon and Sidney, Dillon’s son,
punches Herman. Can Herman join
The
rules are liberal, but there is an outer boundary beyond which you can’t join
up parties.
Rule 20 is not very
interesting. It’s usually easy to see
the relationship between the transactions or occurrences.
Rule 19 is where
the action is!
What’s
happening?
In
the federal action, Synthes files a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(7), saying that the plaintiff failed to join an
indispensable party under Rule 19.
There
is no question that the plaintiff could have joined the hospital and the doctor
in a single action under Rule 20. This is like the car accident where multiple
people may have been at fault. The question
is, if
Who
brought the motion under Rule 19? Synthes, the defendant, did. Rule 19 is brought
by defendants and it says: “We want more people in the suit!”
Rule 19 is couched
in terms of what may happen to a defendant.
The court says that if you fall into this category, Rule 19(b)
applies. The court determines whether
the action should proceed or be dismissed, concluding that the party is
indispensable. This is saying that there
are people whose rights will be affected by the litigation. If you can join them, you must. If you can’t, the court must decide whether
the litigation should proceed or should be dismissed.
This
is a way for defendants to get out of a lawsuit.
The
Court doesn’t get to do this without guidance.
There are various factors to consider as listed in Rule 19(b).
The
Court evaluates these factors in their decision.
This
is a “per curiam” decision. This means either that a clerk wrote it and
it was really simple, or else it’s so controversial that they don’t want to put
specific names on it.
Why
is this such an easy case? The plaintiffs have autonomy as to who they
want to join. They shouldn’t have to sue
everybody if they don’t want to. Yet the
lower court makes the argument that they were an indispensable party under Rule 19(b). The Court says that there is no need to make
an inquiry under Rule
19(b), because you have to do Rule 19(a)
first. The Court finds that the doctor
and hospital don’t pass the Rule 19(a) test as indispensable
parties.
Why
aren’t the Rule
19(a) standards met by this scenario?
What
is Synthes’s defense in their first lawsuit? They will argue that it wasn’t their fault,
but rather the doctor or hospital’s fault.
They will say that the screws are fine, but that it was the doctor’s
fault. The doctor’s claim will be that
they installed the device fine but that the device was badly made.
Synthes
tries to argue that they are being made subject to multiple obligations. Why is that not persuasive? Is Synthes really subject to multiple
obligations? Is it inconsistent to find
two different parties at fault for the same injury? No!
They could be joint tortfeasors!
“Synthes! The screw maker!”
The
Court is right, but they took an easy way out.
They point to the Advisory Committee notes that follow Rule 19 that
explicitly say that joint tortfeasors are merely permissive parties.
Multiple
tortfeasors equals permissive joinder. This is a black-letter rule.
What
does it mean to have a real indispensable party? Say you have a husband and wife who own a
piece of property and a potential buyer.
They contract to sell the piece of property, and then the sellers repudiate
the deal. The buyer sues just the
husband for specific performance.
Is the wife a Rule 19 party? In the absence of the wife, can we give
complete relief to the plaintiff? Can
the court force the husband to sell land that he only jointly owns with his wife? No! If
you jointly own something (unless it’s divisible), then both parties will have
to be joined.
Who
is going to bring this up? The defendant
will! The thing is that there will often
be a jurisdictional problem that will prevent the court from having jurisdiction
over the wife.
Other
examples include:
·
Joint interests in property
·
Joint obligors/obligees (when multiple parties agree
to assume liability in the event of some occurrence, like indemnification
agreements where two parties indemnify you jointly)
·
Represented parties
·
Limited pool/multiple claimants (where interpleader comes into play…if there’s a fixed pot of
money involved, you’ll lose out if that pot gets “poured out” to another litigant
and you’re not involved in the suit)
All
bankruptcies are finite. We have a
separate system of dealing with a finite amount of assets worth less than a
company’s debts.
Don’t
worry about Rules 22, 23, and 24, we’ll deal with them
in Civ Pro II.
We’ll
do