Civ Pro 2

Joinder

100

Rule 18. Joinder of Claims

A party may join as many claims as it has against an opposing party. NEED AN ANCHOR CLAIM FIRST

200

What does Rule 20 require if plaintiffs want to be joined together

Plaintiffs may join together in one action if they assert right to relief jointly, 1. out of the same transaction or occurence, 2. and there is a common question of law or fact in all cases.

300

Explain Mosley v. General Motors and how it relates to Rule 20 - joinder by plaintiff

Mosley v. General Motors – Decides what “same transaction or occurrence” means → refers to rule 13(a) “arising out of the same transaction” transaction is a flexible meaning and depends not upon the immediateness of their connection but their logical relationship. 8th circuit based on US. V. Mississippi (statewide system was the transaction which denied colored people the right to vote) states that the transaction or occurrence is a company wide discrimination by GM and all the acts of the 10 plaintiffs fell under this transaction. Common question of law or fact is also needed → 8th circuit says that the fact that GM acted in a discriminatory way is a common question of fact. Satisfied both two elements and are allowed to be joined.

400

Why is joinder important in employment or race discrimination cases?

Allowing plaintiffs to be joined makes each of those plaintiff's case stronger by showing the pretext of the company.

500

Can defendants be joined together?

Yes, defendants can be joined together if 1. right to relief out of same transaction or occurrence 2. common question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

Defendants Impleading Third Parties

100

What is derivative liability?

"If I am liable to plaintiff, the third party defendant is liable to me"

200

What is needed to derivative liability?

1. Indemnity. Insurance companies can be indemnified. If I am responsible, you are paying. 2. Contribution: If a third party contributed to the damage to the plaintiff, they need to help the defendant with the damages.

300

Under what circumstances may a defendant implead a third party?

A defending party may implead a non party who is or may be liable to the original defendant (third party plaintiff) for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the defendant (third party plaintiff).

400

Does the defendant need the courts permission to implead a third party defendant?

Defendants can implead as a matter of course 14 days after the answer. If not within these 14 days, the defendant must ask for the courts leave.

Required Joinder

100

The court requires joinder of party under two circumstances. What are they

1. If there can be no complete relief in that persons absence 2. Going forth without the person may a) impede the persons ability to protect their interest b) leave an existing party at the risk of incurring multiple obligations because of the interest

200

What is the defense that can be raised about non-joinder.

12(b)(7) - is not waived until the end of trial

300

Are joint tortfeasers required to be joined under Rule 19(a)

No, according to Temple v. Synthes joining joint tortfeasers is permissive. Rule 19 is only evoked when without the third party, the case would turn out differently.

400

How do cases that would give conflicting verdicts and Rule 19 intertwine.

Rule 19 uses required joinder to avoid conflicting verdicts. Ex: A jewelry store goes into a shopping center and they contract to be the only jewelry store in the center. One year later, another jewelry store goes in. Need all three parties to be involved here or else there would be inconsistent verdicts from separate suits.

Class Actions Rule 23

100

To become a certified class 23(c), what requirements must be met

All four requirements under 23(a) and one of the categories in 23(b)

200

What are the four requirements of 23(a)

1. Numerosity - class rep must show that there are enough people in the class that separate suit would be impracticable. 2. Commonality - question of law or fact common to the whole class (usually litigated) 3. Typicality - requirement that the class rep stand in the same shoes as the average class member 4. Adequacy - representative will fairly and adequately do what is best for the class

300

What are the three categories of class actions listed in 23(b)

23(b)(1). Large Rule 19 -- need to be joined for fairness 23(b)(2). Injunctive relief. Generally goes to civil rights cases. The plaintiffs are not asking for money but asking for the defendant to do something, or stop doing something, and have a declaration of rights. 23(b)(3). Includes claims where plaintiffs are primarily seeking money. Small claims or mass torts.

400

What was the issue in Walmart v. Dukes

Commonality. Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have “suffered the same injury”. Does not mean merely that they have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law. → must be narrower than this. Capable of class-wide resolution

500

What was the holding in Dukes v. Walmart

the court held at a 5-4 split that Dukes did not meet the commonality requirement.

Discovery

100

What is the scope of discovery

Relevant, non-privileged information

200

Does relevant information need to be admissible at trial?

No, relevance does not mean it must be admissible at trial. It can be inadmissable as long as it is leading you to admissible evidence

300

What does it mean for information to be relevant?

Relevance links admissibility to the substantive law and to common-sense patterns of inference. For a piece of information to be relevant to a legal proposition means that the information tends to prove or disprove something the governing substantive law says matters.

400

Explain how discovery scope was interpreted in Davis v. Precoat Metals

Racial Discrimination case. In these cases we allow pretext. Davis asked for all similar complaints to his own against the metal company at that same plant, for four years. Court held that this was narrow enough and fit in the scope of discovery

500

How did relevance play a party in Steffan v. Cheney

The issue in this case was whether questions about Steffan's sexual acts while in the military were discoverable. The court held that they were not relevant because there were no links to substantive law. Questions of his sexual acts were not relevant to his dismissal.