Term
|
Definition
*Plaintiff sued defendant under the truth in lending act and the defendant counterclaimed for the defaulted loan.
*The court held that a counter-claim for the underlying debt is a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13 that must be asserted in a suit by the debtor in a truth-in-lending cause of action. A claim is compulsory if it arises out of the same transaction. A compulsory counter-claim always meets supplemental jurisdiction under 28 USC 1367. A permissive counter-claim usually does not. |
|
|
Term
| Rules govern: Plant v. Blazer |
|
Definition
*Claim: Rules 8 and 18
*Counterclaim: rules 13(a)-(b)
*Cross-claim: Rule 13(g)
*Joining other parties for counter-claim: Rule 13(h)
*Permissive Joinder of parties: Rule 20(a)
*Required Joinder of parties: Rule 19(a) (viewed in a very narrow way)
*Defendant third party claim/Impleader: Rule 14 |
|
|
Term
| Mosley v. General Motors Corp. |
|
Definition
*Plaintiffs wanted to file a single action against a company because of an alleged company discrimination policy. Defendant company argued that these were separate transaction and occurrences and thus could not be joined under 20(a).
*20(a) says that persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if the claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and a common question of law or fact are common among all the plaintiffs.
*The court held that in this case that a company-wide discrimination policy arises out of the same series of transactions or occurrences for all the plaintiffs. In addition the same question of law and fact is common among all plaintiffs. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
*D was sued for making a faulty chicken house. D moved to file a third party complaint against ITW for defectively designing the nails used in the construction of the chicken houses.
*Under Rule 14(a) a defendant may bring in a third party who may be liable for all or part of the claim within 20 days after serving its original answer. The third party liability must be derivative of the original claim. The court held that ITW was properly impleaded under Rule 14(a). Rule used only when D is partially liable. |
|
|
Term
| Kroger v. Omaha Public Power District |
|
Definition
*Construction accident. P brought the case based in diversity. Then P tried to join a party from their same state.
*Parties cannot use joinder to get around the complete diversity requirement for federal cases arising out of diversity. 28 USC §1332(a)(1). Neither convenience or judicial economy can justify the violation of complete diversity. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
*Temple had a back surgery. Subsequently screws broke off inside Temple’s back. Temple sued Synthes in fed court rested in diversity. He then suid Dr. LaRocca and the hospital in state court. Synthes filed a motion to dismiss Temple’s fed suit for failure to join necessary parties under Rule 19. The court granted the motion.
*All joint tortfeasors do not have to be named as defendants in a single law suit, Rule 19 doesn’t change that. They were thus only permissive parties under Rule 19(b). The court erred in dismissing the case. Rule 19(a) is interpreted narrowly. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
*Parties had an agreement that said Valley was not to lease to another jewelry store. Helzburg sued for an injunction enforcing the covenant. Valley moved to dismiss under Rule 19(a) because Helzberg had failed to join the other jewelry store.
*Just because someone will be affected by the result of an action doesn’t mean that they are compulsory parties under Rule 19(a); its only mandatory if the court could not complete relief among the existing parties. 19(a) ask whether they are a required party. 19(b) determines whether the party is so indispensible that if joinder is not feasible the claim should be dismissed. |
|
|
