1 / 13

Today’s Class

A very few slots left for exam reviews, please see me after this class if you want one and didn’t get one. I’m going to cut off the opportunity to schedule an appointment pretty soon (i.e., likely the end of this week). My final “Super” plan is to do as follows:

coye
Download Presentation

Today’s Class

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A very few slots left for exam reviews, please see me after this class if you want one and didn’t get one. • I’m going to cut off the opportunity to schedule an appointment pretty soon (i.e., likely the end of this week). • My final “Super” plan is to do as follows: • No class the Monday after the Super Bowl (Feb. 6). • We’ll move the class on Monday, April 16 to Friday, April 13 at 1 pm in this room. • If we miss an additional class, we’ll have to use both April 13 and 16 for class. • Questions?

  2. Today’s Class • Kroger: Another Civil Procedure Story. • Why did the Supreme Court decide the case the way it did? • The Statutory Ending. • Compulsory Joinder. • Necessary parties: Rule 19. • Potential joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties. SeeTemple. • The Three-Step Rule 19 analysis. • Working with the Three-Step Framework. See Helzberg’s. • Intervention. • Crashing the litigation party. • Analysis of Intervention as of Right: NRDC.

  3. Kroger v. Omaha Public Power District

  4. Problem 1b (p. 768) Suppose that Mrs. Kroger’s claim had been based on federal law rather than state law (e.g., she alleged that OPPD had violated federal job-site safety regulations and that the violation caused her husband’s death). OPPD then impleaded Owen Equipment, alleging it was directly responsible for the violations, and, once Owen Equipment was in the suit, Mrs. Kroger asserted a claim directly against Owen Equipment. Would there be supplemental jurisdiction over Mrs. Kroger’s claim? Why or why not?

  5. Temple v. Synthes Corp.

  6. PlaintiffPotential defendants Temple (MS) The doctor (LA) The hospital (LA) The device maker (PA)

  7. Lawsuit #1 Temple v. Synthes Federal court (E.D. La.) Defective design and manufacture Lawsuit #2 Temple v. Doctor & Hospital LA State court Malpractice and negligence

  8. The Three-Step Rule 19 Analysis • First, assess whether the absent party is “necessary” under Rule 19(a)(1)(A) or (B). If the answer is yes, move on to step 2. If the answer is “no”, the analysis ends. • Second, assess whether it is “feasible” to join the absent, “necessary” party. Here, three questions need to be answered: • Is the absent party subject to personal jurisdiction in the court? • Will joinder of the absent party destroy diversity of citizenship? • Will the absent party, if joined, have an objection to venue? • If there are no issues on these fronts, the court should join the absent party and be done with it. • If there is an issue on one of these three fronts, then move on to step three. • Third, if joinder is not “feasible” the court must decide whether “in equity and good conscience” the court should: • Allow the case to proceed without the absent party; or • Dismiss the case. • And this assessment is made with reference to the factors listed in Rule 19(b)(1)-(4).

  9. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops v. Valley West Des Moines Shopping Center

  10. Step 1: Is Lord’s “Necessary”?Rule 19(a)(1)(A)-(B) (1) A person . . . must be joined as a party if: (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

  11. Step 2: Is It “Feasible” to Join Lord’s? • Personal jurisdiction in W.D. of Missouri? • Subject matter jurisdiction still okay? • Venue issue?

  12. Step Three: Should the Case Continue or Not?The Rule 19(b) Factors 1. To what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the person or to those already parties. 2. The extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by: (a) protective provisions in the judgment; (b) shaping the relief; or (c) other measures. 3. Whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate. 4. Whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.

  13. Intervenors are like . . . The Wedding Crashers

More Related