Contents

I. Joinder.................................................................................................................................................2

A. General............................................................................................................................................2

B. Two Criterias....................................................................................................................................2

C. Joinder of Claims & Remedies [Rule 18]..........................................................................................2

D. Counterclaims/Cross-claims [Rule 13].............................................................................................3

E. Permissive Joinder of Parties [Rule 20]............................................................................................4

F. Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties [Rule 21].............................................................................6

G. Third Party Practice [Rule 14]..........................................................................................................6

1
 Definitions

Exam First Paragraph

I. Joinder
Examples
A. General
Law/rules from cases
1. When do you have joinder issues
a) When you have 2 + π against 1 Δ
b) When you have 1π against 2+ Δ’s
c) When the π is assertion more than one claim against one Δ
d) If you have a π suing and the Δ wants to drag a third party into the case.
B. Two Criterias
1. Does an FRCP rule permit the claim or parties to be joined?
a) Rule 18
b) Rule 13
c) Rule 20
d) Rule 21
e) Rule 14
2. Does any of the claims against any party have original SMJ?
a) 28. U.S.C §1331
b) 28. U.S.C.§ 1332
c) 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a)
C. Joinder of Claims & Remedies [Rule 18]
1. (a) A party may join as many independent or alternate claims as it has against any
opposing parties.
a) Original claims
b) Counter claims
c) Cross-claims
d) Third party claims
2. Use this UNLESS there is a more narrower rule

a) Count 1 I got fired because I am a woman (federal question)

b) Count 2 because I had an employment contract with these people I can
only get fired for certain reasons therefore there is a breach of contract.
(1) #1 Does the FRCP grant permission?
(a) Under Rule 18 YES

2
 (2) #2 Does the courts have Power?
(a) Does the Count 2 have original SMJ? No
(b) Therefore it is an orphan claim. (an orphan claim is when
the original claim does not have original SMJ. If it has no
then the claim cannot stay within federal court and has to
be moved to state court UNLESS supplemental jurisdiction
applies.)
(i) Does 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) apply? YES
(a) Here is does because the orphan claim
arises out of the same transaction as the
original claim. (it can ride the coat tails of
the anchor claim)
D. Counterclaims/Cross-claims [Rule 13]
1. Two Types
a) Compulsory Counterclaims
2. How do you figure this out? (which one)
a) Compulsory counterclaims
(1) Arises out of the initial out of the same transaction or occurrence
or main claim
(2) Test (for exam use "c")
(a) Does the counterclaim involve the same facts or law as the
π’s main claim (yes… CC)
(i) In the pleading stage.. you do not know until
discovery
(b) Does the CC counter claim involve the same evidence as
the π’s main claim?
(i) Stinks too! You don’t know! Until discovery
(c) Is the counter claim logically related to the π’s main
claim?
(i) does the counter claim arise out of the same
operative facts as the π’s main claim… it is CC!
(3) Permissive Counterclaims
(a) Any claim against the opposing party
(b) You cannot assert this at all! You would have to bring it up
in a separate suit.
(c) It has to have its own original SMJ or else it will not be
able to stay within the federal court.

3
 b) Example of COUNTERCLAIM
(1) π sues the Δ for injuries from a car accident. (here there is
diversity, different states 75,000). The Δ then sues for injuries for
45K. Can his claim be joined?
(a) Yes… we do not look at Rule 18, because Rule 13 is more
narrower
(b) #1 Rule 13 governs
(i) Compulsory counterclaim? Yes arises out of the
same transaction
(c) #2 is there power?
(i) This is an orphan claim… so we have to see if there
is §1367 (a) and yes there is
c) Example of CROSS CLAIM
(1) #1 does the FRCP give permission?

(a) Yes, Rule 13

(i) Must arise from the original transaction, here it
does because the Δ is asking for either
"contribution" "indemnification" or money for
their own injuries arising out of the car accident.
(2) #2 Does the ct have Power?
(a) Yes it has §1367(a) because it is riding the coat tails of the
anchor claim.
E. Permissive Joinder of Parties [Rule 20]
1. All persons may join as a π or a Δ if they assert or are subject any right to relief…
a) Arises out of the same transaction or occurrence
b) Has a question of law or fact common to all co parties in the action.

4
 c) Here π 1 and π2 were in one car and got into a car accident with the Δ. They
both want to join into one claim.. can they do that?
(1) #1 Does the FRCP give permission?
(a) YES because under rule 20 it works
(b) Two questions. (1) arise out of the same transaction YES
(2) same question of operative facts? YES… WAS THE Δ
NEGLIGENT?
(2) #2 Does the Ct have permission?
(a) Yes, 28 U.S.C 1332 has diversity.
d) Here, the π (NY) wants to sue Δ1 (Mass) and Δ2 (NY) for claims arising out of

a plane crash. The π does not know who installed the power lines next to
the runway that the plane crashed into before landing.
e) #1 Which FRCP gives permission?
(1) Under RULE 20. (you can join other Δ's)
(2) Ask 2 questions: (1) arising out of the same claim? Yes.. plane
crash (2) is there a same question of law or fact? Yes… who put
the power lines up to cause the crash
(3) Therefore YES
f) #2 Does the ct have power?
(1) (please look below for another explanation)
(2) Under §1367 (a) you can join…. BUT DIVERSITY IS AT ISSUE!
(a) Here we see if the 3 prong test applies
(i) Anchor claim is based on diversity
(ii) The second claim is asserted by the π
(iii) The orphan claim is against a party joined by rule
14 or Rule 20
(b) Here the 3 prong test is passed therefore THERE IS NO
POWER. Because this passage of the 3 prong test negates
the power of §1367(a)
2. If the original claim is based on diversity. You have to see if it falls within the
exception
a) 28 U.S.C §1367 (b)
(1) There prong test

5
 (a) Anchor claim is based on diversity
(b) The "second" claim is asserted by the π
(c) The orphan claim is against a party joined by Rule 14 or
Rule 20
(2) If they fall within §1367(b) then you cannot assert supplemental
jurisdiction
b) The whole purpose of this is because people will try to skirt around
complete diversity… and the cts is trying to prevent that!
F. Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties [Rule 21]
1. Misjoinder is NOT a ground for dismissal of an action
2. Parties may be dropped or added at any stage of the action
3. Any claim against a party may be served and proceeded with separately
G. Third Party Practice [Rule 14]
1. This is how you bring in a 3rd party who is not mentioned in the original claim.
2. They can be served within 10 days after serving its original Answer (without the
leave of court) but after you must as permission
3. You can only use Rule 14 if the basis for the claim is to be "indemnification" or
"contribution"
4. You can never use Rule 14 to put the blame on someone else!
a) "no pointing fingers!"
5. #1 Does FRCP give permission?

a) Under RULE 14
(1) You can! Because the Δ is trying to add the person to get
"contribution" or "indemnification"
6. #2 Does the Ct have power?
a) This is an orphan claim… but it does work under §1367(a)
b) BUT since the anchor claim is based on diversity… we have to do the 3
prong test
(1) Is the anchor claim based on diversity?
(2) Did the second claim brought on by π? NO

6
 (3) Is the orphan claim against a party joined by Rule 14 or Rule 20?
(4) Here since #2 failed… therefore §1367 (b) does NOT apply.
c) Therefore there POWER under §1367(a)
7. #1 Does FRCP give permission?

$75,000

a) Under 14 Couldn't it be also Rule 20… because the π is asserting claim??

(1) You can! Because here the Δ is trying to get "contribution" or
"indemnification"
8. #2 Does the Ct have Power?
a) Under §1367 (a) yes.. but because the anchor claim is based on diversity
look at 3 prong test
(1) Is the anchor claim based on diversity?
(2) Did the second claim brought on by π?
(3) Is the orphan claim against a party joined by Rule 14 or Rule 20?
(4) The test is fulfilled therefore it negates the power of §1367 (a)
b) Therefore NO power.
(1) The reason why is because you cannot get around complete
diversity!