This is a report listing all the questions and answers within this lesson. CALI Author lessons are organized into pages. Each page corresponds to a text or question/answer screen. In addition to the pages there is summary information about the lesson and an outline and page list. Hyperlinks which would take a student to different pages during the lesson will instead scroll the report to the appropriate spot.

The first page the student sees is the Contents page.

You can follow the flow of the questions more easily through the Mapper.

This program is distributed to licensees for use in accord with an annual membership agreement for 2009-2010. Use after the expiration of the license period is prohibited.

Approximate Completion Time: 20-45 minutes for each section, 4.75 hours

Topic

 

• Introduction (Introduction)
  

   

• Joinder in General (General 1)
  

   

• Claim Joinder - Rule 18 (Claim 1)
  

   

• Party Joinder - Rule 20 (Party 1)
  

   

• Counterclaims (Counterclaims 1)
  

   

• Cross Claims (Cross 1)
  

   

• Third Party - Rule 14 (Third 1)
  

   

• Compulsory Joinder (Compulsory 1)
  

   

• Intervention (Intervention 1)
  

   

• Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ 1)
  

   

• Review - A Hypothetical (Review 1)
  

   

• Conclusion (Rules)
  

Text

This lesson is designed to help students learn the principles of joinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is designed to be used in different ways. Students may use it as a tutorial to accompany assigned readings, as a supplement to reinforce concepts discussed in class, or as a review before exams. The program is interactive, requiring the student to respond to various questions and hypotheticals to learn the principles embodied in the rules. It does not assume any specific knowledge of the joinder rules—it is designed to teach the rules from scratch.

The program uses hypertext links between various parts of the program. These links offer students options in navigating through the program so they are not forced to follow a particular order. The user is the master of the organization. All of the rules and statutes that are needed are available as part of the program and may be viewed at any time by selecting an on-screen button.

The program includes units on a variety of joinder topics: Claim Joinder (Rule 18); Party Joinder (Rule 20); Counterclaims; Cross-claims; Third-Party Claims (Rule 14); Compulsory Joinder (Rule 19); and Intervention (Rule 24). It also contains an extensive unit devoted to the Subject Matter Jurisdiction problems raised by these rules. Finally, there is a review unit to allow the user to apply the principles learned in the lesson. The program is not tied to the organization of any particular civil procedure text.

Author notes

11/10/2005 DQ deleted language about this being a unique tool for learning.

Next page: "Contents"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Text

Joinder - In General

(Throughout this program we will be discussing joinder under the Federal Rules. Use the Rules button to the right to see any of the rules.) I assume that you are familiar with the simple lawsuit. It can be visualized like this:

P v. D

Just one plaintiff against one defendant, with one claim being asserted (say, for breach of contract) by the plaintiff against the defendant.

But the real world is not always so simple.

Next page: "General 2"

[TOP]

Text

Suppose a person (P) injured in a car accident wants to bring two claims - one for personal injury and one for damage to the car. Can both be brought in the same lawsuit, and, if so, by what authority?

Or suppose there were a three car accident and P wanted to sue both other drivers (D1 and D2) in one lawsuit. Perhaps a passenger in P's car (A) would like to join her claim with P's, and both want to sue D1 and D2 in the same suit. Can they do it?

(It can get even worse. The defendants may want to sue each other or sue the plaintiff. However, we'll leave discussion of CROSS CLAIMS ("Cross: Pop-Up") and COUNTERCLAIMS ("Counterclaims: Pop-Up") for later.)

In order for claims and/or parties to be added to a lawsuit, several requirements must be met...

Next page: "General 3"

[TOP]

Text

First there must be authority under one of the Federal Rules to add the claim or party. Second there must be SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. (For the main claim[s] of plaintiffs against defendants VENUE ("Venue") also must be proper.)

And of course, there must be personal jurisdiction ("Personal Jurisdiction") over the parties added to the lawsuit.

The first requirement - authority under the rules - is the main subject of this program. We also will discuss problems of subject matter jurisdiction over the joined claims. Personal jurisdiction and venue will be left for your classroom discussion.

For now let's return to our auto accident victim who wants to sue two defendants for personal injury and property damage.

Next page: "General 4"

[TOP]

Question

The situation presents two different joinder problems. When P wants to sue for both personal injury and property damage in the same lawsuit, that's claim joinder. When P wants to sue two separate defendants in the same lawsuit (or when two or more plaintiffs want to sue one or more defendants) that's party joinder. '

Now we can explore claim and party joinder in more detail. Choose a button to continue

Choices

Response

Claim Joinder		Jump straight to "Claim 1".
Party Joinder		Jump straight to "Party 1".

Author notes

12/29/05 Rachael - Corrected statement to say personal injury instead of personal jurisdiction

Next page: "Contents"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Text

CLAIM JOINDER

When P has more than one claim against D, P would like to know whether all those claims may be joined in one lawsuit. That certainly would seem to make life simpler for P. Where would you look to see whether there is authority to bring multiple claims in one suit?

How about the Federal Rules? In particular, Rule 18 ("Rule 18") governs the joinder of claims in federal court.

Before we go any further, why don't you take a look at Rule 18 ("Rule 18") .

Next page: "Claim 2"

[TOP]

Question

Now let's suppose that plaintiff (P) was in a car accident with the defendant (D). Suppose further that P had also loaned D $100,000, which had not been repaid. Assuming that subject matter jurisdiction exists, can P join claims for personal injury from the car accident with the claims for the loan in the same lawsuit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Claim 2Y".
No		Jump straight to "Claim 2N".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Claim 3"

[TOP]

Text

So Rule 18 allows all claims, no matter how unrelated, to be joined. You might wonder why the rule permits such a mess state of affairs. Well, consider this example. As above, D owes P $100,000 on a loan. When P goes to D's house to collect, they get into an argument and D hits P, causing injuries. Are these two claims (for the loan and the personal injury) sufficiently "related" to be joined? Perhaps, but in close cases like this there would be a great deal of litigation about whether the claims are sufficiently related to be joined. The tradeoff for Rule 18's broad simplicity is potential messiness.

There is some help in the Rules for this problem. If you look at RULE 42(b) ("Rule 42(b)") , you will see that it permits the court to separate unrelated claims for trial.

Next page: "Claim 4"

[TOP]

Question

Now we have established that our plaintiff may bring more than one claim in the same lawsuit. If plaintiff has more than one claim, MUST they all be brought in one suit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Rule 18 says a party "may join" all claims. It does not require that all available claims be joined. Try again.
No		Because Rule 18 says a party "may join" claims against an opposing party the rule itself does not compel the joinder of all claims. However, if the claims are sufficiently related, the doctrine of claim preclusion (or res judicata) sometimes may force the party to join the claims. After feedback jump to "Claim 5".
Only if the claims are related		Because Rule 18 says a party "may join" claims against an opposing party the rule itself does not compel the joinder of all claims. However, if the claims are sufficiently related, the doctrine of claim preclusion (or res judicata) sometimes may force the party to join the claims. After feedback jump to "Claim 5".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Claim 5"

[TOP]

Text

There is another principle that limits a litigant's ability to join claims - SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. The federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction over each claim joined. Any claims lacking jurisdiction will be dismissed. You can go to the Subject Matter Jurisdiction by returning to the Table of Contents ("Contents") and choose the Subject Matter Jurisdiction link, or wait until later to learn about the problems of jurisdiction.

Author notes

3/20/2008 ACG removed direct link to subject matter jurisdiction to avoid non-linear jumping around in lesson for students, potentially without their knowledge where within the lesson they are jumping. Making these a link to the table of contents instead.

Next page: "Claim 6"

[TOP]

Text

Remember that Rule 18 only deals with the question whether multiple claims between two opposing parties may be joined in one suit, not whether those claims are legitimate claims!

Now you have the basics. We will use these principles later in our discussions of Counterclaims, Cross Claims, Third Party Claims (all three of which are accessible through the Table of Contents) and other situations in which claims may be joined. You may go to those discussions now if you like or you can click next and go on to Party Joinder through the Table of Contents.

Author notes

3/20/2009 ACG Again, replaced direct links to sections to keep a frame of reference for students.

Next page: "Contents"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Text

PARTY JOINDER - In General

This section will address general concepts of party joinder. Specific topics such as adding Third-Party Defendants, Compulsory Joinder of parties (both accessible through the Table of Contents ("Contents") ) and additional parties under Rule 13(h) ("Rule 13(h)") are discussed elsewhere in this tutorial.

Party joinder means just what it says -- the addition of parties to a lawsuit. One may wish to join parties at the outset of the lawsuit or later on, when the suit is already in progress.

If you worked through the earlier part of the program you will recall the plaintiff (P) who was involved in a car accident with two other cars driven by D1 and D2.

Author notes

03/20/2008 ACG replaced direct links to TOC references

Next page: "Party 2"

[TOP]

Question

If P wants to join D1 and D2 as defendants in one lawsuit for personal injuries suffered in the car accident, is the joinder permitted under the federal rules? The plaintiff's attorney would look to RULE 20 ("Rule 20") for the answer -- and you should, too.

After looking at the rule, do you think it permits P to join the defendants?

Choices

Response

Yes		Very good. In a moment, we will explore the reasons. For now, go to the next page. After feedback jump to "Party 3".
No		Jump straight to "Party 2N-1".

Question

Let's test your knowledge some more. Suppose P has a claim against D1 for a federal antitrust violation and one against D2 for an unrelated violation of the federal civil rights laws. If those are P's only claims against D1 and D2, could both defendants be joined by P in the same suit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Perhaps you need to review again the dual requirements of Rule 20: (1) The claim against the defendants must arise from the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions; (2) There must be a common question of law or fact. Here, the claims against each defendant are totally unrelated and there is no common issue of law or fact.
No		Good. I see you are catching on to the requirements of the rule. Let's go on. After feedback jump to "Party 4".

Text

Unlike Rule 18, for example, which allows unlimited claim joinder, Rule 20 does not permit an unlimited joinder of parties. Before burdening the court and the parties with multiple party litigation the rule requires a certain degree of relatedness as evidenced by the two factors in the rule. Only if both factors are met will the joinder be permitted.

Rule 20 does not override the operation of other joinder restrictions such as Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Venue, and Personal Jurisdiction (all accessible through the Table of Contents or Index) so remember to check for them as well.

Now let's try another hypothetical.

Author notes

3/20/2009 ACG replaced direct links w/ toc reference

Next page: "Party 5"

[TOP]

Question

Suppose P, the car accident victim, was the driver of one of the cars, and A was a passenger in P's car. P and A would like to sue D1 in one suit, claiming that D1 was responsible for P's and A's injuries. (P and A are not related.) Can P and A jointly sue under Rule 20?

Choices

Response

Yes		Good. Now answer the next question. After feedback jump to "Party 6".
No		Jump straight to "Party 5-N".

Question

Suppose P and A would like to sue both D1 and D2 (from the original auto accident hypothetical) all in one suit. Does Rule 20 permit that?

Choices

Response

Yes		Right. The rule permits multiple plaintiffs with related claims against multiple defendants to join in one suit. After feedback jump to "Party 7".
No		No. The rule permits joinder of multiple plaintiffs and defendants in the same suit. Look back at Rule 20 ("Rule 20") if you wish. Do you see how it works?

Question

We now have a lawsuit that looks like this:

P and A v. D1 and D2

But we aren't through yet. What if P also has a claim against D1 for an unpaid loan P made to D1. Does Rule 20 permit that claim to be joined in the existing lawsuit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Party 7Y-1".
No		Jump straight to "Party 7N".

Text

As you can see from the last question, often you must look at more than one rule to determine the answer to a joinder problem. In this case, Rule 20 permits the initial joinder of the parties (P, A, D1 and D2) in one lawsuit because all were involved in the accident claim. Then, once the parties were properly joined, Rule 18 permits one party (here, P) to assert any other claims, related or unrelated, that P has against any opposing party. The key is that, at least as far as the rules are concerned, once Rule 20 is satisfied, another rule like Rule 18 ("Rule 18") can operate to permit other kinds of joinder of claims as to parties in the lawsuit. (Naturally, these rules do not eliminate the need for subject matter jurisdiction.)

Next page: "Party 9"

[TOP]

Text

Now you have a basic grounding in party joinder, at least as far as starting the lawsuit is concerned. In other sections we will discuss how you can join more parties to the lawsuit. Go to the Index and choose another topic.

Next page: "Contents"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Text

COUNTERCLAIMS

As the name implies, counterclaims are claims brought as a reaction to other claims. To take the simplest example, if A sues B, and if B has a claim against A, B might assert it as a counterclaim in the A v. B lawsuit. But before we go any further, there is something you must understand. Counterclaims are not the same thing as a DENIAL OF LIABILITY ("Denial of Liability") , nor are they the same as DEFENSES ("Defenses") . A counterclaim is a request for affirmative relief against an opposing party.

Next page: "Counterclaims 2"

[TOP]

Text

There are two general classes of counterclaims -- those that you must bring into the lawsuit and those that you may, but need not, bring into the lawsuit. The former are called compulsory counterclaims; the latter are called permissive counterclaims. Normally it is not difficult to determine whether your client has a claim for affirmative relief against an opposing party. But it is critical to understand whether the counterclaim is compulsory or not. You may believe for reasons of strategy that it would be preferable to assert the counterclaim as a separate lawsuit. Beware! If it turns out that the counterclaim was compulsory (i.e., it had to have been brought in the first suit), you will not be permitted to assert it later, and your client may become your adversary in court!

Next page: "Counterclaims 3"

[TOP]

Question

How do you know whether a counterclaim is compulsory? As with other joinder questions, the first resort is to the Federal Rules. Specifically, RULE 13(a) ("Rule 13(a)") defines a compulsory counterclaim. Take a look at it before we go on.

There are three important elements of a compulsory counterclaim. Type the answer. Press the GRADE button when you are satisfied with your answers.

Three elements of compulsory counterclaims (one is not the lack of any need for other parties not subject to the courts' jurisdiction, so don't include that one!).

Model correct answer for user to compare his answer to

The three elements are: 1) the counterclaim must be against an opposing party 2) the counterclaim must arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the claim against you 3) the counterclaim must exist at the time the opposing party's pleading is served on you.

Response

Response for any answer

Compare the model answer to your answers. Hopefully you got all three right!

Comment

Next page: "Counterclaims 4"

[TOP]

Question

Before we delve into the details of those elements let's look at an example. P's car collides with the car of D. P is injured and brings a lawsuit against D to recover for the injuries. D was also injured and believes P was at fault in the accident. Is D's claim against P a compulsory counterclaim (ignore subject matter or personal jurisdiction issues)?

Choices

Response

Yes		Of course. P and D are opposing parties and whatever the elusive phrase "transaction or occurrence" means, these claims arise from the same one. We'll discuss that concept shortly. After feedback jump to "Counterclaims 5".
No		Well, perhaps the terminology is still confusing to you. But P and D clearly are "opposing" parties, D's claim existed at the time P served the complaint and, whatever the elusive phrase "transaction or occurrence" means, D's claim arises from the same one as P's. We will explore these concepts as we go on.

Text

Now it is time to explore the elements of compulsory counterclaims more closely. Keep in mind a central theme as we go through the elements of the various federal rules: If it makes good sense to allow the joinder of a particular claim or party, chances are that one or another of the rules will permit it. With that in mind, let's go on.

The central element of a compulsory counterclaim is that it must arise out of the "same transaction or occurrence" as the claim made against the counterclaiming party. We will start with a discussion of that element. If you wish to skip that discussion (because you already read it in another part of the program), you may click the link below. Otherwise continue on.

SKIP portions of this lesson on "same transaction or occurrence." ("Counterclaims 14")

Next page: "Counterclaims 6 (trans/occ definition)"

[TOP]

Text

The meaning of "same transaction or occurrence" is both simple and vague. On the simple side, it means that before we encourage or mandate additional complexity in a lawsuit (through added claims or parties), we will require that there be some relatedness between the original, possibly simple claim and the added ones. This is particularly important when we are talking about adding claims that are not under the control of the plaintiff -- we don't want to unduly complicate matters for the plaintiff.

In fact, you may have already seen one instance of this principle at work if you went through the section on Joinder of Parties (available in Table of Contents) under RULE 20 ("Rule 20") . There, too, we found that the rules impose the same kind of relatedness test (also based on the terms "transaction or occurrence") for creating a lawsuit with multiple plaintiffs and/or defendants.

Author notes

3/320/2009 ACG took out direct link and replaced w/ reference to TOC

Next page: "Counterclaims 7"

[TOP]

Text

Many cases are easy, such as the car accident example where the cars of P and D collide. Obviously, the accident is a single "occurrence" and claims arising from the accident are part of the same occurrence. Other cases are not so easy.

Courts have used several tests to determine whether two claims arise from the same "transaction or occurrence." One test is whether the evidence needed to prove the two claims is substantially the same. This would appear to be sufficient, and sensible, because if two claims will require the same evidence it makes sense to try them together. But, while this test can be helpful, it is also rather limiting. Other tests, which permit more latitude in joining claims, have been used.

Next page: "Counterclaims 8"

[TOP]

Text

Another test is whether the two claims would be considered the same "cause of action" for purposes of res judicata or claim preclusion. That is, if the claims are so closely related that the common law would bar a later suit on one claim if not asserted along with the other they are from the same "transaction or occurrence." This, too, is a fairly restrictive test and is not widely used -- although if res judicata would bar the second claim, it probably satisfies the rule. Also, the term "cause of action" is even more elusive to define than "same transaction or occurrence" so the test often is not very helpful.

Next page: "Counterclaims 9"

[TOP]

Text

The most popular test is the "logical relationship" or "logical connection" test. If the two claims are "logically related" then they are said to satisfy the "same transaction or occurrence" requirement. Unfortunately, this test is not terribly precise, so in difficult cases reasonable people may disagree on the correct answer. On the other hand, there is considerable agreement about the purpose of the logical relationship test, which allows for general agreement about a large number of cases.

It generally is agreed that the test follows the general scheme of the rules; if it makes sense to try the claims together, the rules probably permit them to be tried together. Thus, the logical relationship test is used pragmatically by courts. If it makes practical sense to combine the claims as a single trial unit, usually that is sufficient. In addition, courts perceive that the rules are to be read fairly liberally and will find the test to be met in many close cases.

The best way to get a feel for the test is to use it. Therefore, what follows are some fact situations in which you should determine whether the second claim (for convenience we are using counterclaims here as the second claim) is logically related to the main claim.

Next page: "Counterclaims 10"

[TOP]

Question

Plaintiff sues Defendant to recover money allegedly loaned to Defendant (evidenced by personal checks written to Defendant). Defendant counterclaims alleging that the checks were payment for work performed and requesting an accounting of money paid to Defendant by Plaintiff. Are the claim and counterclaim part of one transaction or occurrence?

Choices

Response

Same Transaction		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 10S".
Different Transaction		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 10D".

Question

West (which owns Westlaw, a computerized legal database) sues Lexis to prevent Lexis from using "star pagination" (internal page notations from the reporters) in its computerized legal database. West claims a federal copyright on the pagination in the West reporters. Lexis in turn claims that West has been attempting to monopolize the computerized legal database business by acquiring competitors, refusing to allow reasonably priced access to its publications by Lexis, monopolizing published reports of opinions and statutes (using exclusive contracts to publish them) and monopolizing its finding aids. Lexis countersues West for federal antitrust violations.

Choices

Response

Same Transaction		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 11S-1".
Different Transaction		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 11D-1".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Counterclaims 12"

[TOP]

Question

Company sues Insured to void an insurance policy issued by Company on the grounds of fraud by Insured. Insured counterclaims for recovery of a loss under the policy.

Choices

Response

Same Transaction		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 12S".
Different Transaction		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 12D".

Question

Borrower sues Lender for violating the federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") by using illegal terms in the loan. Borrower seeks rescission of the loan. Lender counterclaims for money due by Borrower under the loan and not yet paid.

Choices

Response

Same Transaction		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 13S".
Different Transaction		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 13D".

Question

The phrase "transaction or occurrence" is the key in determining whether or not a counterclaim is compulsory. But there are some exceptions to the rule, as we will see. For the next two questions, assume that A and B have a contract under which A is to deliver widgets to B every month for two years and B is to pay within a week of each delivery.

1. A sues B, claiming that B has not paid for last month's shipment. B wishes to counterclaim, alleging that the goods delivered were defective and that they damaged some of B's equipment. Is B's counterclaim compulsory?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 14Y".
No		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 14N".

Question

Another exception to the compulsory counterclaim rule is when there is another action pending on the counterclaim at the time the opposing party's pleading is served in the current action. In that case, you are not required to plead the pending claim as a counterclaim (you are permitted to do so if you wish, however).

Choices

Response

Yes		Well, the two claims do arise from the same general contract for monthly shipments. But you are overlooking a key part of Rule 13(a ("Rule 13(a)") ). The counterclaim must exist at the time the opposing party's pleading is served for it to be compulsory. Here, if the answer was filed within the time allotted by the rules, the counterclaim did not exist until later.
No		Jump straight to "Counterclaims 15N".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Counterclaims 16"

[TOP]

Text

In addition, if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over parties whose presence is needed for the counterclaim, or if the opposing claim is a quasi in rem action (i.e. one against attached property), then even related counterclaims are not compulsory. These are common sense exceptions to the compulsory counterclaim rule, but they are easily overlooked if one is too hasty.

_______________________

Clearly, compulsory counterclaims are the most critical of the two types analytically. But we shouldn't forget permissive counterclaims. Although not required, one is permitted to plead them even if they are unrelated to the opposing party's claim.

Next page: "Counterclaims 17"

[TOP]

Text

Given the existence of permissive counterclaims (which encompass all counterclaims that are not compulsory) one may wonder why compulsory counterclaims are a big issue. If you can plead an unrelated counterclaim as a permissive one, a careful practitioner just pleads all available counterclaims to avoid any problems.

While that is a sensible strategy, things are not so simple. Although the rule permits free joinder of counterclaims, they still must satisfy the rules of SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ("SMJ: Pop-Up") . As will be seen later, it is the limitations of subject matter jurisdiction that cause the distinction between compulsory and permissive counterclaims to be so critical. You can look at that section now, or wait until you have studied more of the joinder rules.

Next page: "Counterclaims 18"

[TOP]

Text

What happens if you forget to interpose a compulsory counterclaim? If you try to bring a subsequent action on that claim it will be barred. But there is an escape hatch -- RULE 13(f) ("Rule 13(f)") . Take a look at it now. As you can see, the court has the authority to overlook a mistake on your part, but this is discretionary with the court and should not be counted on.

And suppose you have a counterclaim that does not exist until after the opposing party's pleading is served? You may use RULE 13(e) ("Rule 13(e)") to serve a supplemental pleading containing the counterclaim.

Now that you have the basics about counterclaims you can go on to another topic -- perhaps cross claims?

Author notes

03/23/2009 ACG removed link that went directly to the next section, again making them go back to TOC for frame of reference.

Next page: "Contents"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Question

CROSS CLAIMS

Cars driven by P, D1 and D2 are in an accident. P sues D1 and D2 (in federal court) for negligence, claiming they are jointly to blame for her injuries (see JOINDER OF PARTIES ("Joinder- Pop-Up") and/or RULE 20 ("Rule 20") ). If either D1 or D2 were injured and wanted to sue P for negligence in the same suit, that would be a COUNTERCLAIM. But suppose D1 wants to sue D2 in the existing suit. Why would that not be a counterclaim as well? (Hint: Take a look at RULE 13(a) ("Rule 13(a)") or RULE 13(b) ("Rule 13(b)") .) Use the space below for your answer. [Press Grade when ready]

Response

Short phrases to test against user's answer

contains all of these word(s) "opposing" "parties"		Right. Up to this point, D1 and D2 are not opposing parties. They are co-parties in a lawsuit. Rules 13(a) and 13(b) state that counterclaims are between opposing parties. After feedback jump to "Cross 2".
contains all of these word(s) "oposing" "parties"		Right. Up to this point, D1 and D2 are not opposing parties. They are co-parties in a lawsuit. Rules 13(a) and 13(b) state that counterclaims are between opposing parties. After feedback jump to "Cross 2".
contains all of these word(s) "opposing" "party"		Right. Up to this point, D1 and D2 are not opposing parties. They are co-parties in a lawsuit. Rules 13(a) and 13(b) state that counterclaims are between opposing parties. After feedback jump to "Cross 2".
contains all of these word(s) "oposing" "party"		Right. Up to this point, D1 and D2 are not opposing parties. They are co-parties in a lawsuit. Rules 13(a) and 13(b) state that counterclaims are between opposing parties. After feedback jump to "Cross 2".
does not contain any of these word(s) "opposing" "oposing" "party" "parties"		Not quite. The reason is that D1 and D2 are not opposing parties, which is a requirement of Rules 13(a) and (b). Rather, they are co-parties.
If unrecognized answer		I was unable to recognize your answer, please try again (you may need to be more specific).

Hints

Text

Claims can be made between co-parties, under specific circumstances. They are called cross-claims. (Note: In some states the term "cross complaint" includes COUNTERCLAIMS, cross-claims and THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. This is not the case in federal court.) To see how cross claims work, you may want to refer to this diagram of the hypothetical lawsuit:

Picture

Text

Cross claims are governed by RULE 13(g) ("Rule 13(g)") . Take a look at it before we go on.

Next page: "Cross 4"

[TOP]

Question

The rule contains a key phrase defining a proper cross claim. The cross claim must arise from the same "transaction or occurrence" as that underlying the main claim -- i.e., the one between P and D1 & D2 -- or a counterclaim in that original action.

Just what constitutes a transaction or occurrence is a matter worthy of some discussion. If you have not already worked through that part of the counterclaim section, follow this link to do so (Note: this link will take you back several questions in the lesson): "TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE ("Counterclaims 6 (trans/occ definition)") ." If you have been through that part, continue on from here.

Does the claim of D1 vs. D2 in the previous example satisfy that test?

Choices

Response

Yes		Right. The cross-claim arises from the same accident as the one that led to P's claim against D1 and D2. After feedback jump to "Cross 5".
No		I don't see why not. The claim between D1 and D2 arises from the same accident as the claim of P against D1 and D2.

Author notes

02/22/2009 ACG added note about jumping back in lesson

Next page: "Cross 5"

[TOP]

Text

Why would Rule 13(g) impose this relatedness test on cross-claims? Cross-claims, even more than counterclaims, are somewhat removed from the main action. In fact, they are known as "ancillary" claims. If we allowed any and all possible claims between co-parties, the lawsuit would become very complex and the ancillary claims would assume more importance than the original claim. This would be rather unfair to the plaintiff. Therefore, the rule requires that cross-claims be related to the original claim.

This also is consistent with the philosophy of the joinder rules: if it makes sense to allow the joinder, it should be permitted. It makes sense to join related claims into a single lawsuit; it cuts down on discovery and trial time in the long run. But adding unrelated claims often adds unneeded complexity without yielding any gains in efficiency.

Next page: "Cross 6"

[TOP]

Question

Suppose in the P v. D1 and D2 lawsuit the only claim D1 wants to assert against D2 is for a breach of contract for the sale of D2's house to D1. Is that a proper cross-claim?

Choices

Response

Yes		No. You are forgetting the requirement that a cross -claim must be related to the original action.
No		Right. The prospective cross-claim is totally unrelated to the original claim. After feedback jump to "Cross 7".

Question

Would the answer be the same if D1 had a claim against D2 for injuries suffered in the accident and wanted to join the breach of contract claim with it as cross-claims in the P v. D1 and D2 suit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Cross 7Y".
No		Jump straight to "Cross 7N".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Cross 8"

[TOP]

Question

As can be seen from the last examples, a claim against a co-party that is unrelated to the main claim cannot be brought alone. However, under RULE 18 ("Rule 18") , if it is joined with a proper cross-claim then it can be joined. This adds a good deal of complexity. Fortunately, there is RULE 42(b) ("Rule 42(b)") to give the court flexibility to sever claims as necessary.

________________________

In the P v. D1 and D2 suit arising from the accident, is D1 required to bring the claim against D2 arising from the accident in the same action?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Cross 8Y".
No		Right. The key language in Rule 13(g) is "may state as a crossclaim." This means that cross-claims are permissive, even though they are related to the main claim. This is a different situation from counterclaims ("Counterclaims: Pop-Up") . After feedback jump to "Cross 9".

Question

There is one situation in which a cross-claim might be deemed compulsory. P sues D1 and D2 as before, and D1 cross-claims against D2 for injuries suffered in the accident. Now suppose D2 wants to assert a claim against D1 for injuries suffered in the same accident. That could be deemed a compulsory claim. Do you see why? Answer briefly in the space below. (Hint: see RULE 13(a) ("Rule 13(a)") and RULE 18 ("Rule 18") .)

Response

Short phrases to test against user's answer

contains all of these word(s) "compulsory" "counterclaim"		Excellent. D2 now is an opposing party to D1 (this is made reasonably clear by the language of Rule 18). D2's claim also arises from the same transaction or occurrence as D1's claim against D2. Therefore, under Rule 13(a), D2's claim looks like a compulsory counterclaim. After feedback jump to "Cross 10".
contains all of these word(s) "compulsory" "counter" "claim"		Excellent. D2 now is an opposing party to D1 (this is made reasonably clear by the language of Rule 18). D2's claim also arises from the same transaction or occurrence as D1's claim against D2. Therefore, under Rule 13(a), D2's claim looks like a compulsory counterclaim. After feedback jump to "Cross 10".
contains all of these word(s) "compulsory" "counter-claim"		Excellent. D2 now is an opposing party to D1 (this is made reasonably clear by the language of Rule 18). D2's claim also arises from the same transaction or occurrence as D1's claim against D2. Therefore, under Rule 13(a), D2's claim looks like a compulsory counterclaim. After feedback jump to "Cross 10".
does not contain any of these word(s) "compulsory" "counterclaim" "compulsary" "counter claim" "counter-claim"		D2 now is an opposing party to D1 (this is made reasonably clear by the language of Rule 18). D2's claim also arises from the same transaction or occurrence as D1's claim against D2. Therefore, under Rule 13(a), D2's claim looks like a compulsory counterclaim.
If unrecognized answer		I don't recognize your answer. Please be more specific.

Hints

Text

We have learned a lot about cross-claims in this discussion. However, there is one subject that is being left for later. Lurking in the background of all joinder problems is SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ("SMJ: Pop-Up") . Cross-claims must satisfy subject matter jurisdiction, even if they are permitted under the rules. This is a particular problem when one uses Rule 18 to join unrelated claims with a proper cross-claim. If you want to see that discussion now, use the button to go there. Otherwise, it's time to go back to the Index and choose another topic.

Next page: "Contents"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Text

THIRD PARTY CLAIMS

Third-party claims can best be explained by an example. Imagine that you own a store. You buy products to sell from Manufacturer. Unfortunately, one of those products, purchased by a consumer, breaks and injures the consumer. The consumer sues you for breach of warranty. But you had no way of knowing that the product was defective (it was packaged). Although you may be liable to Consumer as the seller of the goods, you believe that Manufacturer is the real culprit and should have to indemnify you for any loss. (In tort terms, you are secondarily liable and Manufacturer is primarily liable.)

Next page: "Third 2"

[TOP]

Text

Third-party claims provide a procedure for resolving both claims in one lawsuit. When Consumer sues you, you may bring a claim against Manufacturer (who is not yet a party to the action), all in the same action. The claim by you against Manufacturer is a third-party claim; the procedure used to join Manufacturer is called an impleader. You are the third-party plaintiff and the Manufacturer is the third-party defendant. Here is a diagram of the resulting lawsuit:

Picture

Question

Take a look at RULE 14 ("Rule 14") to see the circumstances under which third-party claims may be brought. Now consider the following question:

A is driving a car and B is a passenger in the car. The car collides with a car driven by C. B sues C for negligence. C denies liability and claims that the accident was entirely A's fault. C wants to assert a third-party claim against A. Is that proper?

After you choose an answer, you will be asked to indicate what part of the rule supports your answer. To change your answer to this question, press "OOPS!". Now, answer the question --

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Third 3Y".
No		Jump straight to "Third 3N".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Third 4"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Question

The previous example illustrates the key limitation in Rule 14 -- the third party complaint must allege that the third party defendant is liable to the third-party plaintiff, not to the plaintiff in the main action.

Assuming that one has a proper impleader claim, is one required to bring it into the lawsuit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Third 4Y".
No		Jump straight to "Third 4N".

Text

The rest of Rule 14 ("Rule 14") deals with claims related to the joinder of the third-party defendant. You should look carefully at the rule before you proceed, but it will be available at all times at the press of the Rules button.

The next page will series of questions will present you with a series of possible claims in the third-party context. The original lawsuit (A v. B) is a car accident between A and B. B has properly impleaded C, claiming that C (driver of another car) is partly to blame and is liable to B. You will be presented with a diagram of each additional claim and a description of the claim. You are to determine whether the claim is compulsory, permissive or improper under the federal rules. For the moment ignore subject matter jurisdiction issues. The program assumes that the claims are asserted in the order presented, and it assumes that they are asserted after the original impleader is accomplished. (You may assume that any necessary motions to add these claims are made in a timely fashion.)

Next page: "Third 6"

[TOP]

Question

Description of Claim: Contract claim for goods sold and delivered

Is the highlighted claim:

Choices

Response

Permissive		Jump straight to "Third 6P".
Compulsory		Jump straight to "Third 6C".
Improper		Jump straight to "Third 6I".

Question

Description of Claim: Tort claim for assault and battery unrelated to the accident

Is the highlighted claim:

Choices

Response

Permissive		Jump straight to "Third 7P".
Compulsory		Jump straight to "Third 7C".
Improper		Jump straight to "Third 7I".

Question

Description of Claim: Claim for injuries suffered in the accident due to C's alleged negligence

Is the highlighted claim:

Choices

Response

Permissive		Jump straight to "Third 8P".
Compulsory		Jump straight to "Third 8C".
Improper		Jump straight to "Third 8I".

Question

Description of Claim: Contract claim on an unpaid promissory note

Is the highlighted claim:

Choices

Response

Permissive		Jump straight to "Third 9P".
Compulsory		Jump straight to "Third 9C".
Improper		Jump straight to "Third 9I".

Question

Description of Claim: Claim for injuries suffered by C in the accident

Is the highlighted claim:

Choices

Response

Permissive		Jump straight to "Third 10P".
Compulsory		Jump straight to "Third 10C".
Improper		Jump straight to "Third 10I".

Question

Description of Claim: Claim for assault and battery against A as a result of a fight two days after the accident

Is the highlighted claim:

Choices

Response

Permissive		Jump straight to "Third 11P".
Compulsory		Jump straight to "Third 11C".
Improper		Jump straight to "Third 11I".

Text

Well, you have finished all of the claims in the diagram. Don't forget, these explanations are only for what the rules permit or require; the requirements of subject matter jurisdiction may further limit your options!

Next page: "Third 13"

[TOP]

Question

MORE ON THIRD PARTY CLAIMS

Now that you have the basics there are just a few final points to make.

Let's use our three car accident example again. For this question, assume that the only claims are the main claim of A v. B and the third-party claim of B v. C (i.e., no claims between C and A). Responding to the third-party complaint, C asserts an affirmative defense that the plaintiff, A, was contributorily negligent (B has not yet asserted that defense). A claims that, because A has not sued C, C cannot raise an affirmative defense to A's claim against B. Is A right?

Choices

Response

Yes		Sorry. If you look at Rule 14 you will see that it permits the third-party defendant to raise defenses to the main claim as well as to the third-party claim.
No		Correct. Rule 14 permits the third-party defendant to raise defenses to the main claim as well as the third-party claim. (Look at Rule 14 for the precise language.) After feedback jump to "Third 14".
Shared response		However, there are certain limits. The third-party defendant cannot raise defenses deemed personal to the main defendant, such as personal jurisdiction or notice.

Question

Suppose C believes that D, a passenger in C's car, was partly to blame for any errant driving on C's part. Can C bring D into the suit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Third 14Y".
No		Look carefully at Rule 14(a)(5). It specifically permits a third-party defendant to implead a non-party to the suit. That non-party becomes a "fourth party" defendant.

Text

I think that gives you a good grounding in third-party claims. One important caveat to all of this is that, even if Rule 14 (alone or in combination with other rules) permits a claim to be asserted, there still must be subject matter jurisdiction ("SMJ: Pop-Up") over the claim and personal jurisdiction ("Personal Jurisdiction") over any new parties brought into the action, such as the third-party defendant.

Finally, Rule 14 contains some provisions for the timing of third-party claims. If they are asserted within 10 days of the service of the main claim then no motion to the court is required. If asserted later a motion must be made.

Now you can go on!

Next page: "Contents"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Text

COMPULSORY JOINDER

The concept of compulsory joinder is somewhat antithetical to our usual model of litigation. Normally, plaintiff is entitled to choose his or her opponents. (There are some exceptions, notably intervention ("Intervention: Pop-Up") and third-party actions ("third - in general") . The latter do not involve parties directly opposed to the plaintiff.) Compulsory joinder is an attempt to protect two groups of people. First is the absent party. As we will see, under some circumstances it would be unfair to continue the action without the absent person. Second, we want to protect existing parties from unfair burdens caused by the absence of a vital person. At the same time, we want to preserve plaintiff's choice of defendants whenever possible. Under limited circumstances we will mandate the joinder of absent individuals, or dismiss the action if they cannot be joined.

Next page: "Compulsory 2"

[TOP]

Text

Before Rule 19 ("Rule 19") was amended in 1966, the rule operated pretty much under common law notions of compulsory joinder. The common law divided absent people into two categories -- "necessary" and "indispensable ". (Naturally, a third category existed of people who need not be joined in any event, but we will ignore them for the moment.) Necessary parties were those who should be part of the action, but are not so essential that the action cannot continue without them. Thus, the name "necessary" is somewhat of a misnomer. Indispensable parties were those who must be made parties. Without them, the action could not continue. The operation of these principles can be illustrated by a well-known case.

Next page: "Compulsory 3"

[TOP]

Text

A moderately wealthy woman named Sara dies having executed a will leaving a number of specific bequests to various individuals and charities, and leaving the remainder of the estate -- most of it, in fact -- to a Hospital. Sara's niece, Bertha, filed a suit claiming that Sara had agreed to leave the entire estate to her. Although there were many legatees, Bertha only formally joined two defendants, the Hospital and a Bank, which was the executor of Sara's estate. [WHY ("WHY") ?] The suit sought an order adjudging Bertha the sole beneficiary of the estate and ordering the defendants to transfer the property of the estate to Bertha.

Next page: "Compulsory 4"

[TOP]

Question

Apart from the mere fact that the Bank and Hospital might lose, does the absence of the other legatees cause them any special problems? Check the answer(s) you think are correct and then press grade.

Facts ("Compulsory Facts 1")

Choices

	No
	Yes. The Hospital might have claims on the rest of the estate
	Yes. The Bank might be subjected to double liability
	Yes. The Bank may want to sue the other legatees

Response

If correct		Correct. If the Bank is ordered to pay Bertha, the absent parties could sue the Bank and win. After feedback jump to "Compulsory 5".
If wrong		Incorrect. If the Bank is ordered to pay Bertha, the absent parties could sue the Bank and win.

Hints

Question

Could the absent beneficiaries be harmed by the result in this case?

FACTS ("Compulsory Facts 1")

Choices

Response

A		They aren't bound, but they still could be harmed.
B		No, the court could not order them to do things because they are not parties.
C		That's a possibility. After feedback jump to "Compulsory 6".
D		Not quite. While it is possible that the case could set a bad precedent (#3), as non-parties the absent legatees cannot be ordered to turn over their inheritances.

Text

As a result of this, the court found the absent beneficiaries to be "necessary," which really means desirable. But many were beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, the question became whether they were "indispensable," requiring that the action be dismissed.

The court found that it was possible to make an order ("Order") protecting the rights of both the parties to the action and of the absent legatees. Therefore, it concluded that the absent legatees were not indispensable.

Unfortunately, the distinctions between "necessary" and "indispensable" parties were often shrouded in artificial distinctions, making accurate counseling difficult. Finally, in 1966, the drafters of the federal rules tried a more pragmatic approach to the problem.

Next page: "Compulsory 7"

[TOP]

Text

One final note before moving to Rule 19's solution to the problem. Generally, defendants do not request compulsory joinder unless the absent parties cannot be joined. (This is not always true, but other procedural avenues exist for defendants to join parties when necessary. For instance, interpleader under a federal statute ("Section 1335") or Rule 22 ("Rule 22") can often avoid the problem of double liability.) Thus, it is used most often in an attempt to have the action dismissed.

Next page: "Compulsory 8"

[TOP]

Text

The Change to Amended Rule 19

Rule 19 was amended in 1966. The aim was to get away from the artificial categories of "necessary" and "indispensable" parties and move to a more pragmatic analysis of compulsory joinder. The rule divides the analysis into three segments. First, one determines whether, under Rule 19(a), the absent person is one who SHOULD be joined. If yes, then determine whether that person CAN be joined. If not, then go to Rule 19(b) to determine whether the action should be dismissed.

Next page: "Compulsory 9"

[TOP]

Question

Rule 19 (a) - Who Should be Joined?

Landlord (from New York) believes that Subtenant (from California) is violating the terms of a $100,000 lease between Landlord and Tenant (from Canada). Landlord wants to sue both Tenant and Subtenant in the same action to terminate the lease. Does Rule 19(a) ("Rule 19") apply?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Compulsory 9Y".
No		Jump straight to "Compulsory 9N".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Compulsory 10"

[TOP]

Question

But if party joinder is not used voluntarily, then we must consider Rule 19. Here is another example:

After a plane crash, Victim's family sues Maker for negligent design and manufacture of the airplane. Maker claims that Pilot should be joined as a defendant. Under our Rule 19 analysis we first must determine whether Pilot is a person who should be joined if feasible.

Let us do this in a structured way.

Can complete relief be granted between Victim and Maker in the absence of Pilot?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Compulsory 10Y".
No		Jump straight to "Compulsory 10N".
Maybe		Jump straight to "Compulsory 10M".

Question

Does Pilot have an interest in the suit such that, as a practical matter, Pilot's interest will be impaired if Pilot is not made a party? (This is Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i) ("Rule 19") . Compare Rule 24(a)(2) ("Rule 24") .)

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Compulsory 11Y".
No		Jump straight to "Compulsory 11N".

Question

Is there a substantial risk that Victim or Maker will be subject to multiple liability or inconsistent obligations

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Compulsory 12Y".
No		Jump straight to "Compulsory 12N".

Text

Thus, we can conclude that Pilot is not a person who should be joined if feasible under Rule 19(a). Even if Rule 19(a) was deemed satisfied and Pilot could not be joined, it is very doubtful that Rule 19(b) would require dismissal. For one thing, as noted in an answer above, Maker may be able to avoid the problem by using a third-party claim ("third - in general") . The problem is between Maker and Pilot, and has nothing to do with Victim. It would be unfair to deprive Victim of a chosen forum on this basis.

Next page: "Compulsory 14"

[TOP]

Question

Assuming one finds that an absent person satisfies Rule 19(a) and should be joined, what could make joinder not feasible? (Check all that apply)

Choices

	Subject matter jurisdiction
	Personal jurisdiction
	Notice
	Venue

Response

A	You should reread the first sentence of Rule 19(a). It specifically mentions subject matter jurisdiction as a problem.	Rule 19(a) specifically talks about someone who does not destroy subject matter jurisdiction. So that answer is correct.
B	You missed the beginning of Rule 19 where it says the absent person must be subject to personal jurisdiction to be compelled to join.	Rule 19(a) states that an absent person must be subject to service of process to be compelled to join. Your answer is correct.
C	Apparently you understand that if a person is subject to service of process, notice should not be a problem.	Notice is not the same as being "subject to" service of process. If the person can be served, presumably proper notice can be given.
D	Venue is only a problem if the joined party raises the issue. Thus it differs from subject matter and personal jurisdiction. However, if it is raised by the joined party and venue is improper, that party will be dismissed.	Venue is only a problem if the joined party raises it. If not, then the joinder proceeds. If it is raised, then the party would be dismissed if venue is improper. (See the last sentence of Rule 19(a).)

If correct

Text

Here's another example. Harry (an Ohio citizen) sued a Bank (a Florida citizen) requesting that the Bank be ordered to issue shares of its stock to Harry. Harry claimed that he and Sally (an Ohio citizen) jointly purchased Bank stock, which was issued in Sally's name, but that Sally had told the Bank to issue some of the shares in Harry's name. The Bank claimed that Sally had agreed to transfer the shares to the Bank for use as collateral on a loan made to Sally. (Got that?) The Bank now claims that Sally must be joined.

Next page: "Compulsory 16"

[TOP]

Question

Harry (an Ohio citizen) sued a Bank (a Florida citizen) requesting that the Bank be ordered to issue shares of its stock to Harry. Harry claimed that he and Sally (an Ohio citizen) jointly purchased Bank stock, which was issued in Sally's name, but that Sally had told the Bank to issue some of the shares in Harry's name. The Bank claimed that Sally had agreed to transfer the shares to the Bank for use as collateral on a loan made to Sally. (Got that?) The Bank now claims that Sally must be joined.

Which parts of Rule 19(a) are relevant here? (There may be more than one correct answer.)

Choices

Response

A		Jump straight to "Compulsory 16-1".
B		Jump straight to "Compulsory 16-2".
C		Jump straight to "Compulsory 16-3".
D		I disagree. At least one choice is right. Please try again.

Author notes

10/25/2005 DQ made this MC page even though there's more than one right answer to allow for the branching questions off responses.

Next page: "Compulsory 17"

[TOP]

Question

Thus, Sally is a person who should be joined if feasible. Assuming the suit was brought in an Ohio federal court, can Sally be joined?

Choices

Response

A		Sorry. Since Harry and Sally are both Ohio citizens, her joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction.
B		That shouldn't be a problem. The case is in Ohio and Sally is an Ohio citizen. Try again.
C		Correct. Since Harry and Sally are both Ohio citizens, her joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction. After feedback jump to "Compulsory 18".
D		Venue is only a problem if Sally raises the issue. But that isn't the real problem here. Try again.

Text

Once the court determines that an absent person should be joined, and that the person cannot be joined, it must determine whether "in equity and good conscience the action should proceed" with the existing parties or be dismissed. This is not a simple question, and answers will vary widely depending on the facts of each case. Rule 19 (b) sets out four basic factors. Two of them tend to be of the greatest import in most cases: the availability of another forum for plaintiff's complaint and the ability of the court to fashion relief that both avoids harming the absent party and protects the parties in the case.

If you wish to see the Supreme Court's discussion of the Rule 19(b) factors click the "CASE ("CASE") " hyperlink.

Next page: "Compulsory 19"

[TOP]

Question

If you went through the earlier part where the case of Bertha against the Bank was discussed, you saw that a court has considerable discretion to fashion relief in a way that permits the action to continue.

Let's return to another example -- Harry and Sally and the Bank. FACTS ("Compulsory Facts 2") We decided that Sally was a person who should be joined under Rule 19(a) but who cannot be joined due to subject matter jurisdiction problems. Therefore, we must ask whether the action should be dismissed.

Is there another forum for an action by Harry against the Bank and Sally?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Compulsory 19Y".
No		Jump straight to "Compulsory 19N".

Question

The availability of another forum favors dismissal. But if the court can shape relief to avoid either harming Sally's interest or causing double liability to the Bank then plaintiff's autonomy should be respected. Write a possible way for the court to fashion such relief below (or write NONE if you think it is not possible).

Response

Short phrases to test against user's answer

contains any of these word(s) "none"		That certainly is a possibility. You should consider that the court might order the Bank to issue the shares to Harry but order that Harry hold them until his dispute with Sally is settled. That might alleviate the problem somewhat -- at least as between Harry and the Bank. Of course it would not settle the entire dispute. After feedback jump to "Compulsory 22".
does not contain any of these word(s) "none"		Jump straight to "Compulsory 21U".
If unrecognized answer		I didn't recognize your answer. Try again.

Hints

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Compulsory 22"

[TOP]

Text

In the actual case on which this example is based the court decided that Sally (not her real name) was indispensable. Here is part of what the court said:

"The second factor [of Rule 19(b)] directs the court to consider the extent to which the shaping of relief might avoid or lessen the prejudice to existing or absent parties. Because the title to the stock certificates, although not the immediate issue in this litigation, assumes such commanding importance, it is difficult to conceptualize a form of relief or protective provisions which would not require as a preliminary matter the determination of the question of title with all the resulting potential for prejudice." [footnote omitted]

Next page: "Compulsory 23"

[TOP]

Text

As you can see, determining when a party is "indispensable" is not an easy matter. However, you should understand that very few situations call for the dismissal of the action under Rule 19. Therefore, do not be too quick to assume that an absent person's presence is required by the rule.

Time to go on!

Next page: "Contents"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Text

Sometimes someone who is not a party to the action wants to get in on the fun. However, allowing just anyone to crash the party would be unfair to those already in the suit - particularly the plaintiff, who chose not to bring this person into the suit. Rule 24 ("Rule 24") sets forth the conditions under which an outsider may join the lawsuit. In some circumstances the nonparty has a right to intervene; in other circumstances intervention is dependent on the indulgence of the court.

First, let's consider the situation under Rule 24(a), in which a nonparty has an unconditional right to intervene in the action. We can see the underlying logic of the rule in the context of a hypothetical case (on the next page).

Next page: "Intervention 2"

[TOP]

Question

Imagine that A sues B claiming a violation of the federal securities laws. C has a claim against B stemming from an automobile accident. C figures that since B already is a defendant in (let us assume) an unsavory case, it would be advantageous to join the lawsuit and assert the claim against B. Ignoring subject matter jurisdiction concerns, should C have a right to intervene in this lawsuit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Intervention 2Y".
No		Jump straight to "Intervention 2N".
Maybe		Jump straight to "Intervention 2M".

Text

Permitting intervention here would cause problems. It would disrupt A's lawsuit without yielding any gains in judicial economy - even the discovery would have to be separate. (Rule 18 claim joinder at least potentially avoids motion practice among existing parties over whether claims are related.)

Looking at Rule 24(a) we see that the outsider's rights must somehow be affected by the existing lawsuit for the nonparty to have a right to intervene: the moving party (the putative intervenor) must be "so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest" That is not the case with C here. C's claim has nothing to do with A's and could not be affected by it. Therefore, C does not have a right to intervene.

Next page: "Intervention 4"

[TOP]

Question

Before we go on, let's make sure that you know the three requirements of Rule 24 (a). Write them in the space below.

Model correct answer for user to compare his answer to

1) You must claim an interest in the property that is the subject of the action or the transaction on which the action is based.

2) The pending action must, as a practical matter, harm your ability to protect that interest.

3) The existing parties must not be able adequately to protect your interests

Response

Response for any answer

Comment

Next page: "Intervention 5"

[TOP]

Question

In the first example that we looked at the proposed intervenor, C, did not claim any interest in the basic subject matter of the lawsuit -- the securities transactions. Thus, C did not satisfy the first requirement of rule 24(a)(2).

Suppose Landlord (L) sues Tenant (T) claiming a breach of the lease. If L is successful, the lease will be ended. However, T has subleased to Subtenant (S), who is not a party to the action. S, fearing eviction, seeks to intervene as of right as a defendant in the suit (ignore any jurisdictional issues).

Does S claim an interest in the transaction that forms the basis of the lawsuit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Correct. Even though S has no contract with L, S's sublease with T would be harmed if the main lease is breached. After feedback jump to "Intervention 6".
No		That's a hard answer to understand. Although S does not have a contract directly with L, S's sublease surely will be affected if the main lease is terminated.
Maybe		I don't see why you are being so equivocal. Although S has no contract with L, if the main lease is terminated it surely will affect S.

Question

As a practical matter, will S be unable to protect this interest (say, in a separate lawsuit) if S cannot intervene?

Choices

Response

Yes		Right. If T loses, then S has little recourse other than a suit against T. But that would only get damages, not the right to live in the subleased premises. After feedback jump to "Intervention 7".
No		Jump straight to "Intervention 6-N/M".
Maybe		Jump straight to "Intervention 6-N/M".

Question

Would T adequately represent S's interests?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Intervention 8".
No		Jump straight to "Intervention 8".
Maybe		Jump straight to "Intervention 8".
Shared response		A hard question. T might not care about the suit because S, not T, is living in the premises. If S is paying a large premium to sublease arguably T's interest in keeping the sublease alive would be sufficient to protect S's interests. But most likely a court would permit S to intervene as of right here. As an interesting side note consider this: S almost certainly would be a compulsory party under Rule 19. You may have noticed that Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i) is almost identical to part of Rule 24(a)(2). At a minimum, S would be a party who should be joined under Rule 19(a) -- that section has no limitation regarding adequate representation by existing parties.

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Intervention 8"

[TOP]

Text

In practice, the "interest" requirement and the requirement that the intervenor's interest be, as a practical matter, impaired by failure to intervene are treated together in many cases. It is easy to see why. Unless the interest clearly is unrelated to the pending action, it makes sense to inquire into how the intervenor will be harmed before deciding whether the interest is appropriate and sufficient. Sometimes, an interest that does not appear related on its face may prove to be related when one inquires as to potential harm.

Thus far, we have considered fairly easy cases. Let's consider a harder case.

Next page: "Intervention 9"

[TOP]

Question

The United States (US) filed suit against various parties (VP), claiming ownership of certain coastal reefs and claiming that VP had dredged and deposited material on the reefs in violation of federal law (the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act).

Atlantis (A), a non-party corporation, claims to have discovered these particular reefs, claims ownership of these reefs and wants to develop them as resorts. A seeks to intervene, claiming its ownership and alleging that VP and US have trespassed on its land.

Choices

Response

A		Jump straight to "Intervention 9A".
B		Jump straight to "Intervention 9B".
C		Jump straight to "Intervention 9C".

Question

If you already have seen the discussion of adequate representation as an issue you may SKIP ("Intervention 12") this section of the tutorial. Otherwise, continue with this screen.

The US is trying to defeat the claims of VP, who are competing claimants to A. Why doesn't that make US an adequate representative of A's interests?

Choices

Response

A		Only in the philosophical sense. In reality, the US interest here is adverse to A because A and US have conflicting claims of ownership of the reef. Thus, US cannot adequately represent A.
B		That really only explains (in part) how A is harmed by the outcome of the case. It does not really explain why the US can't adequately represent A. After all, if US fights hard but loses, why assume that A would be a better litigant? Try another answer.
C		Correct. Both A and US claim ownership of the reef and their claims are not compatible. After feedback jump to "Intervention 11".
D		But if US's claim against VP is the same as A's claim, wouldn't US adequately represent A's interests? Try again.

Question

Even if the US is an inadequate representative, why aren't the other parties (VP) adequate representatives?

Is it because they cannot bind A if they win?

Choices

Response

Yes		Not really. That isn't the key problem here.
No		Jump straight to "Intervention 11-1".

Question

Is it because their claims are adverse to A and A wants to sue them?

Choices

Response

Yes		Right. After feedback jump to "Intervention 12".
No		Jump straight to "Intervention 11-2".

Text

Permissive Intervention

There is another form of intervention under Rule 24: permissive intervention. As its name implies, this form of intervention depends on the largesse of the court, which means that the court has considerable discretion to control such intervention.

Some provisions of the Civil Rights laws give the U.S. Attorney General a conditional ability to intervene. However, permissive intervention is largely under the province of Rule 24(b)(2). Let us see how the rule operates in practice.

Next page: "Intervention 13"

[TOP]

Question

Victim sues Lowlife for selling worthless unregistered securities of XYZ Co. allegedly in violation of the federal securities laws. Lowlife denies that registration was required. Another person, Buyer, had purchased other securities from Lowlife - those of ABC, Inc. - in an unrelated deal and now believes those securities (which are the same type as those issued by XYZ) should have been registered.

Is Buyer prohibited from intervening by Rule 24(b)?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "Intervention 13Y".
No		Jump straight to "Intervention 13N".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "Intervention 14"

[TOP]

Question

As you can see, permissive intervention is much more liberal than intervention as of right. However, a motion for permissive intervention is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. What sort of limits could a court place on a permissive intervenor? (Check all that you think apply, then press Grade.)

Choices

	Limit the issues that the intervenor could raise
	Limit the claims that the intervenor could make against other parties
	Deny intervention even if a common question exists
	Relegate the proposed intervenor to non-party, amicus status

Response

If correct		Correct. The court may impose any or all of these restrictions. The court's power to impose limits on intervention as of right is somewhat more problematic. Nothing in the rule indicates that such a power exists, but the Advisory Committee notes indicate that the Committee believed such power existed. In the absence of express authority the Advisory Committee's opinion should not be definitive, although some courts have tried to impose restrictions on intervenors of right. After feedback jump to "Intervention 15".
If wrong		Incorrect. Any or all of these restrictions may be imposed by the court on a permissive intervenor. The court's power to impose limits on intervention as of right is somewhat more problematic. Nothing in the rule indicates that such a power exists, but the Advisory Committee notes indicate that the Committee believed such power existed. In the absence of express authority the Advisory Committee's opinion should not be definitive, although some courts have tried to impose restrictions on intervenors of right. After feedback jump to "Intervention 15".

Hints

Text

Apart from the types of conditions the court might impose, there is another crucial distinction between permissive and as of right intervenors. A denial of intervention as of right is immediately appealable, even before the suit is completed. To appeal denial of permissive intervention one must wait until there is a final judgment. (One caveat - if the court grants permissive intervention but denies intervention as of right, the denial portion is not immediately appealable.)

For both 24(a) and 24(b) intervention the rule requires a "timely" motion. (You must make a motion to intervene under either section.) Timeliness depends on the facts, but obviously a showing of prejudice to those already parties will be the strongest evidence of an untimely motion. Intervention poses interesting problems of subject matter jurisdiction (available in the index) as well. You can explore them now or go to any other topic you choose.

Next page: "Contents"

[TOP]

Toolbar buttons

Text

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND JOINDER

Although the federal rules make it very easy to join claims and parties to a lawsuit, this facility must be tempered by two considerations. First, there must be PERSONAL JURISDICTION ("Personal Jurisdiction") over all parties added to the lawsuit. Second, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction over all claims in the lawsuit. It is the latter problem with which we will be concerned in this section.

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the ability of a court to hear a particular kind of case. You may already be familiar with the two major forms of federal subject matter jurisdiction: DIVERSITY ("Diversity") and FEDERAL QUESTION ("Federal Question Jurisdiction") . The key to using these concepts in the context of joinder is to remember one simple rule: There must be some kind of subject matter jurisdiction over each claim in the lawsuit. Thus, the main claim (say A v. B) will have either diversity or federal question jurisdiction, which permits the suit to be brought into a federal court. However, as we add claims and parties to this simple lawsuit keep in mind the rule; each added claim must have its own subject matter jurisdiction or it cannot be added.

The reason for this rule is found in federal Rule 82 . As you can see, Rule 82 states that the federal rules do not override the statutory requirements for subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, even if a federal rule permits the addition of a particular claim, there must also be subject matter jurisdiction over that claim.

To make it easier to use this section, you may use the menu on the next page to select specific topics in subject matter jurisdiction. Pressing the "Subject Matter Menu" button at the right (which is on all pages in this section) will make the menu ("SMJ Menu") page pop up.

Next page: "SMJ 2"

[TOP]

Question

GENERAL COMMENTS

In the simple case involving only A v. B federal subject matter jurisdiction is relatively easy. Things become complicated only when we start adding claims and parties.

For instance, to the simple A v. B, add a defendant:

A v. B and C

If there is no federal question, and A is a New York citizen, B is a California citizen and C is a California citizen, is there DIVERSITY (the case is for $1 million against each of B and C)?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 2Y".
No		Jump straight to "SMJ 2N".

Question

Now suppose A is not diverse from either B or C. Suppose further that A has a FEDERAL QUESTION ("Federal Question Jurisdiction") claim against B. If A has a claim under state law against C, and if the rules of PARTY JOINDER ("Party Joinder - In General") permit the joinder of this claim, is there subject matter jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 3Y".
No		Jump straight to "SMJ 3N".
Maybe		Jump straight to "SMJ 3M".

Question

Alternatively, suppose A has two claims against B, one of which is a federal question and one of which is a breach of contract claim for $100,000 under state law. Assuming that the rules of CLAIM JOINDER ("Claim - In General") would permit the joinder of these two claims, would there be subject matter jurisdiction over the resulting lawsuit?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 4Y".
No		Jump straight to "SMJ 4N".
Maybe		This is the best answer. You do not know whether the parties are diverse, and the federal question covers only one claim. There is another possible basis for jurisdiction which we haven't yet discussed, but you would need more facts to determine whether it exists. After feedback jump to "SMJ 5".

Text

As we have noted earlier, the federal joinder rules permit the joinder of most claims that belong together in one lawsuit. There are jurisdictional rules that permit the court to have subject matter jurisdiction over many, but not all, of the claims that may be joined under the federal rules, even when federal question and diversity jurisdiction are lacking. In the next section, we'll begin to see how these rules work. (Or you may go back to the subject matter jurisdiction menu ("SMJ Menu") .)

Next page: "SMJ 6"

[TOP]

Text

THE CONCEPT OF SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

It had long been obvious that there are times when it would be very convenient to permit joinder of claims and parties, but neither DIVERSITY ("Diversity") nor FEDERAL QUESTION ("Federal Question Jurisdiction") jurisdiction exists. In addition to the lack of any specific statutory basis for jurisdiction over the joined claims there was another stumbling block. Article 3 of the Constitution limits the federal courts to hearing "cases or controversies" of certain types, the most common of which are diversity cases and federal question cases (there are others, but they aren't helpful to this discussion). If there was no Article 3 category into which the joined claims would fit, arguably the Constitution prohibited the joinder of those claims in federal court.

Next page: "SMJ 7"

[TOP]

Text

In the case of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs ("United Mine Workers v. Gibbs") , the Supreme Court held that, if a claim arose from the same "nucleus of operative facts" as a federal question claim, the non-federal claim could be considered part of the same constitutional "case" as the federal question claim and the federal courts could assert subject matter jurisdiction over the non-federal claim. This judge-made doctrine of subject matter jurisdiction (the facts of Gibbs involve what used to be called PENDENT jurisdiction) outside the normal confines of diversity and federal question jurisdiction allowed an important expansion of CLAIM JOINDER ("Claim - In General") . Analogous judge-made doctrines permitted a variety of other types of claim and party joinder, as we will discuss.

In 1990, Congress codified these judge-made doctrines in a statute, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367 ("Section 1367") . This form of jurisdiction (formerly known as pendent and ancillary jurisdiction ("Ancillary Jurisdiction") ) is now known as Supplemental Jurisdiction. Section 1367 ("Section 1367") now provides the basis for jurisdiction in a variety of situations when the DIVERSITY ("Diversity") and FEDERAL QUESTION ("Federal Question Jurisdiction") statutes would not apply. This permits the expansive federal joinder rules to be used in a more effective manner, to bring most of the claims that should be joined together into the same lawsuit.

Next page: "SMJ 8"

[TOP]

Question

Discussion of sec. 1367:

There are two key aspects of the supplemental jurisdiction statute. First is the requirement that the supplemental claims be sufficiently related to the main claim such that one Article 3 "case" exists (thus codifying the test of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs).

Second, the statute singles out a general category of cases for somewhat less favorable treatment, as far as permitting supplemental jurisdiction. What category is that?

Choices

Response

A		No, try again.
B		Right. Cases where the sole jurisdictional basis for the main claim is diversity are treated less favorably. After feedback jump to "SMJ 9".
C		No. That's what all of section 1367 is about!

Question

Finally, suppose in A v. B, A is from New York and B is from Texas. A has a federal antitrust claim against B relating to some business dealings between the parties and also a tort claim against B for $100,000 stemming from an automobile accident.

Can the two claims be joined under the federal rules? (This is a review!)

Choices

Response

Yes		Correct. Rule 18 ("Rule 18") permits the joinder of these claims. After feedback jump to "SMJ 10".
No		Hmmm. That's not correct -- you can join these claims (even if unrelated). Perhaps you should review claim joinder and/or Rule 18.
Maybe		Jump straight to "SMJ 9M".

Question

Same facts ("SMJ 9 Facts") as previous question.

Is there a subject matter jurisdiction problem with either or both claims?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 10Y".
No		Jump straight to "SMJ 10N".
Maybe		Jump straight to "SMJ 10M".

Text

The point is that there is no need to use supplemental jurisdiction when there is an independent basis for jurisdiction over a claim. Just because there is more than one claim does not mean that it does not have an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Next page: "SMJ 12"

[TOP]

Text

SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM JURISDICTION (formerly known as "PENDENT" JURISDICTION)

Suppose A and B are not diverse, but A has a federal question claim against B for violation of the federal securities laws. The rules of CLAIM JOINDER ("Claim - In General") would permit A to add other claims against B. However, unless those other claims arise under ("Arising Under") a federal law there would be no apparent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over those other claims. Now suppose the second claim of A against B is for fraud under state law and that the basis for the fraud claim is the same activity that forms the basis for the federal securities claim. This is a classic illustration of a "supplemental " claim --a form of jurisdiction outside of the confines of DIVERSITY ("Diversity") and FEDERAL QUESTION ("Federal Question Jurisdiction") jurisdiction. (Such supplemental claims made by plaintiffs against defendants, and added on to claims that have an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction -- such as federal question jurisdiction -- used to be known as "pendent" claims.) Although such jurisdiction was originally judge made, is has now been codified as 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367. ("Section 1367")

Next page: "SMJ 13"

[TOP]

Question

Under the landmark case of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs ("United Mine Workers v. Gibbs") the two claims are considered part of one "case" under Article III of the Constitution because they arise from a "common nucleus of operative facts." Thus, the additional (nonfederal) claim satisfies the jurisdictional standard under section 1367(a) ("Section 1367") .

SUPPLEMENTAL (formerly PENDENT ) PARTIES

Suppose that A has a claim against the United States under a federal statute, known as the Federal Tort Claims Act, relating to an airplane crash. Suppose further that there is another potential defendant, D, who was also allegedly partially responsible for the crash. The rules of PARTY JOINDER ("Party Joinder - In General") would permit A to join the U.S. and D in the same action. The action would look like the image shown:

However, the Tort Claims Act applies only to claims against the United States; therefore, unless the claim of A v. D has an independent basis of jurisdiction, it cannot be brought into federal court. If A and D are not diverse, there is no apparent basis for jurisdiction. On the other hand, it would seem wasteful to force A to bring two lawsuits (the claim against the U.S. can only be brought in federal court).

In many ways, the claim of A v. D looks like the supplemental claims that we just discussed -- it is a nonfederal question claim but one that is related to a federal question claim. However, it involves the addition of another party to the action, as well as another claim. Therefore, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court held that such "pendent parties" could not be added, despite the inefficiencies that resulted.

Now take a look at section 1367 ("Section 1367") . Does it permit the addition of parties under the circumstances described above (i.e., the claims of A vs. U.S. and D -- assuming A and D are not diverse)?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 13Y".
No		Jump straight to "SMJ 13N".

Question

Now let's change things a little. Assume that A has claims against B and C, neither of which is a federal question claim (for example, from a single car accident). A and B are diverse, but A and C are not, and all claims exceed $75,000.

The A v. B claim would have federal subject matter jurisdiction standing alone (diversity ("Diversity") ). Can A join the claim against C in federal court in the same action, using section 1367?

Picture

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 14Y".
No		Jump straight to "SMJ 14N".

Question

Let's change the facts just a little more. Assume now that there are two plaintiffs, A and B ( both from New York), suing one defendant, D (from California). A and B each have claims arising from the same auto accident; A and B were in the same car. A was seriously injured and claims damages of $250,000. B was only slightly injured and claims damages of $15,000. Can A and B jointly sue D in federal court in California?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 15-Y".
No		Jump straight to "SMJ 15-N".

Question

But perhaps there is supplemental jurisdiction available? (I.e., perhaps B could tag along on A's legitimate diversity claim?)

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 16Y".
No		Jump straight to "SMJ 16N".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "SMJ 17"

[TOP]

Question

COUNTERCLAIMS

As you should know by now, counterclaims come in two varieties: permissive and compulsory. The availability of subject matter jurisdiction will differ depending on the type of counterclaim.

Let us first consider compulsory counterclaims. If A and B are diverse, and both the main claim and the (compulsory) counterclaim are for more than $75,000, is there a subject matter jurisdiction issue?

Choices

Response

Yes		I don't see why. There would be diversity for each claim. (Similarly, if the counterclaim arises under ("Arising Under") federal law there is no problem.)
No		Correct. (Similarly, if the counterclaim arises under ("Arising Under") federal law there is no problem.) After feedback jump to "SMJ 18".

Question

If A and B are not diverse, and the counterclaim does not arise under federal law, where might we look for jurisdiction?

Choices

Response

A		No. By hypothesis A and B are not diverse.
B		Hey, wake up! It says the counterclaim does not arise under federal law, so it cannot be a federal question.
C		Well, not really. Even if Rule 13 permits the claim to be joined, that isn't sufficient. The rules cannot confer jurisdiction.
D		No. In fact, Rule 82 states that the Rules cannot create jurisdiction.
E		Right. Now we'll see how it works. After feedback jump to "SMJ 19".

Question

Go back and look at Rule 13(a) ("Rule 13(a)") and then type in the key language that may permit the use of supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367.

Response

Short phrases to test against user's answer

contains any of these word(s) "transaction" "occurrence"		That is correct. The key language is that the compulsory counterclaim arises from the "transaction or occurrence" that is the subject of the main claim. After feedback jump to "SMJ 20".
does not contain any of these word(s) "transaction" "occurrence"		Jump straight to "SMJ 19-W".
If unrecognized answer		I don't recognize your answer. Try again

Hints

Question

Do you see what part of section 1367 this relates to?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 20Y".
No		Look carefully. In section 1367(a) ("Section 1367") it says that the court can assert jurisdiction over claims that are so related to claims that are within the original jurisdiction of the court that they form part of the same "case or controversy" [as in United Mine Workers]. After feedback jump to "SMJ 21".

Author notes

01/11/2007 DQ scoring is disabled.

Next page: "SMJ 21"

[TOP]

Question

As you can see, the very definition of a compulsory counterclaim contains the basis for supplemental jurisdiction -- it requires that the counterclaim be related to the main claim in order for it to be compulsory. Thus, compulsory counterclaims will have supplemental jurisdiction whenever necessary (i.e., when they do not have another basis of jurisdiction).

If you did the earlier part, you may recall that section 1367 distinguishes between cases originally brought under federal question jurisdiction and cases originally brought under diversity. Is that a problem for counterclaims?

Choices

Response

Yes		Jump straight to "SMJ 21Y".
No		Jump straight to "SMJ 21N".

Question

Now let's look at permissive counterclaims.

In general, permissive counterclaims are not within the court's supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, there must be an independent basis for jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim. Why is that?

Choices

Response

A		No, that isn't right. They can be federal questions and, if they are, they are also within the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
B		Correct. By definition, permissive counterclaims are those that do not arise from the transaction or occurrence that forms the basis of the main claim. Thus, they lack the "relatedness" required by section 1367. (They would not form a single Article 3 "case" with the main claim.) After feedback jump to "SMJ 23".
C		No. See Rule 13(b) ("Rule 13(b)") .
D		No. Perhaps you need to review the section on counterclaims.

Text

To summarize, then, the answer to supplemental jurisdiction for counterclaims is found in their definition. Compulsory counterclaims are defined so as to make them sufficiently related to the main claim to have supplemental jurisdiction. Permissive counterclaims are by definition unrelated.

Next page: "SMJ 24"

[TOP]

Question

CROSS CLAIMS AND SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

What do we know about cross-claims that is relevant to the existence of supplemental jurisdiction?

Choices

Response

A		Not really relevant. This does not satisfy any of the conditions of supplemental jurisdiction.
B		There is no requirement that supplemental jurisdiction be limited to (or not include) claims between co-parties. (As to any limitations, consider counterclaims.)
C		Jump straight to "SMJ 24C".
D		This does not satisfy (or contradict) any of the conditions of supplemental jurisdiction.
E		Cross-claims are not compulsory!

Text

So, as with compulsory counterclaims, the definition of a cross-claim provides the necessary conditions to assert supplemental jurisdiction. And, because Rule 13 is not listed in section 1367(b), we need not worry whether the jurisdictional basis of the original claim is diversity or federal question.

Next page: "SMJ 26"

[TOP]

Question

Third Party Claims and Supplemental Jurisdiction Let's start with a simple claim:

A (Arizona) v. B (Connecticut)

Now add a third-party claim: A (Arizona) v. B (Connecticut) v. C (Connecticut)

Obviously, the claim of B v. C lacks diversity and, for the moment, assume it is not a federal question claim, either. What would give it subject matter jurisdiction?

Choices

Response

A		Right. Rule 14 requires the third-party claim to be against someone who may be liable to the defendant for the defendant's liability to plaintiff. Thus, C's liability to B is dependent on B's liability to A. This satisfies the test of section 1367(a). After feedback jump to "SMJ 27".
B		Irrelevant. A has no claim against C, so C's diversity from A does not matter. The third-party claim is between B and C only and they are not diverse.
C		This is true, but irrelevant for subject matter jurisdiction.
D		No. Answers #2 and #3 are irrelevant for subject matter jurisdiction.

Text

Obtaining jurisdiction over the third-party claim is the easy part. As we saw earlier, there are many other possible claims permitted by Rule 14 once a third-party defendant is added. Let's consider whether supplemental jurisdiction exists for those claims.

Next page: "SMJ 28"

[TOP]

Question

Consider this suit. Assume A v. B is a federal antitrust suit. Now, if after B impleads C, A makes a claim for $100,000 against C under state law which is permitted by Rule 14(a) , is there subject matter jurisdiction over the A v. C claim?

Choices

Response

A		No. The A v. C claim is under state law and it cannot use the federal question jurisdiction of the main claim.
B		Correct. Now we'll change the facts slightly. After feedback jump to "SMJ 29".
C		No. It isn't necessary to use supplemental jurisdiction here.
D		Incorrect. There is jurisdiction. Look carefully and see what kind.

Question

Consider this suit. A v. B is still a federal antitrust suit. Again, if after B impleads C, A makes a claim for $100,000 against C under state law which is permitted by Rule 14(a) , is there subject matter jurisdiction over the A v. C claim?

Choices

Response

A		No. The A v. C claim is under state law and cannot use the federal question jurisdiction of the main claim.
B		No. Now there is no diversity between A and C.
C		Ok. The "relatedness" requirement of section 1367 (a) is met because Rule 14 requires that this claim be related to the main claim. Now we'll change the facts some more. After feedback jump to "SMJ 30".
D		Incorrect. There is jurisdiction. Look again and see what kind.

Question

Consider this suit. Now assume that A v. B is a $100,000 tort suit for negligence under state law. Again, if after B impleads C, A makes a claim for $100,000 against C under state law which is permitted by Rule 14(a), is there subject matter jurisdiction over the A v. C claim?

Picture

Choices

Response

A		No. The A v. C claim is under state law and now even the A v. B claim does not have federal question jurisdiction. (It does have diversity jurisdiction, however.)
B		No. Now there is no diversity between A and C.
C		Jump straight to "SMJ 30C".
D		Jump straight to "SMJ 30D".

Author notes

05/14/2007 DQ added missing image.

Next page: "SMJ 31"

[TOP]

Question

Now suppose that C wants to make a claim under state law against A for $100,000. Can supplemental jurisdiction exist for that claim?

Choices

Response

A		Jump straight to "SMJ 31A".
B		Incorrect. There are circumstances under which there will be supplemental jurisdiction. Either try another answer or go back to the menu and review the concepts.
C		Jump straight to "SMJ 31C".
D		Jump straight to "SMJ 31D".