Joinder and Supplemental Jurisdiction

Modern Joinder Practice

Adopts theme from equity, permits joinder of parties and claims along transactional lines

Why “package” disputes

• Avoids duplicative litigation

• Avoids unnecessary expense and reduce number of cases in court systems

• Contribute to public confidence in judicial system by avoiding inconsistent results

Why not to “package” disputes

• Multiple claims and parties may confuse jury

• Mandatory packaging may override plaintiff’s ability to choose forum and scope of litigation

Two questions in discussion of claim joinder

1. Is there a joinder rule that permits assertion of claim?

2. Is this claim supported by SMJ

*Joinder rules are procedural only, cannot affect SMJ, must assess whether claim is supported by SMJ

**Venue requirements must be satisfied

Permissive Claim Joinder

Pursuant to Rule 18(a), a party who can assert a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim may join with it as many independent or alternative claims of whatever nature as the party may have against an opposing party

• Rule permits, but does not compel it (plaintiff must consider preclusion rules, may force plaintiff to join)

• Applies even if claims are not transactionally related, based upon different theories, and even if claimant seeking different remedies

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Rules with Permissive Joinder of Claims

• If subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff may aggregate all claims against the defendant in order to satisfy the statutory jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirement.

• If the original claim is based on federal question jurisdiction, a non-federal claim may be joined only if diversity jurisdiction exists or if the two claims are part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim such that supplemental jurisdiction applies.

Joinder of Contingent Claims

Rule 18(b), a party may join two claims even though one of them is contingent/dependant on the disposition/outcome of the other.
Ex: plaintiff can sue a defendant for $10,000 in one count and, in an alternative count, request the court to nullify a fraudulent asset transfer made by the defendant to avoid paying the debt.

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

Facts: D hired by Grundy with mine contract. P violently interfered with mine, as result D lost contract. D sued alleging federal and state claim. Court exercised jurisdiction over both claims via pendant/supplemental jurisdiction, but federal claim dismissed, not actionable under federal law.

Rule of Law:  United Mine Workers v. Gibbs established the modern test for pendent jurisdiction (now codified as supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367).  A federal court has the power to hear state law claims under pendent jurisdiction when the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and the plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them together. However, this power is discretionary, and should not be exercised if federal claims are dismissed early, state issues predominate, or retaining them would be unfair or inefficient.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

may exercise over additional claims over which the court would not independently have subject matter jurisdiction (usually state law claims against a non-diverse defendant) but that arise out of a “common nucleus of operative fact” such that all claims should be tried together in a single judicial proceeding

• Constitutional basis for supplemental jurisdiction lies in Article III, § 2’s reference to the judicial power extending to entire “cases,” not just individual federal “claims.” As all claims are part of one constitutional case, the federal court has the power (though not the duty) to hear them together

Supplemental Jurisdiction and Federal Question cases

• additional claims against the same party can be heard by the court through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if the “common nucleus of operative fact” test is met. (Title VII sex discrimination, then sues for assault and battery)

• supplemental jurisdiction over claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties over which the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction if the claims involving the additional parties satisfy the “common nucleus of operative fact” test. (Sues D1 for Title VII, then sues D2 for assault and battery)

Supplemental Jurisdiction and Diversity Jurisdiction Cases

• the “common nucleus of operative facts” rule also applies to determine whether the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an additional claim

• Permissive Joinder: additional claim is not required to satisfy the amount-in controversy requirement but the addition of that party cannot result in a violation of the requirement for complete diversity of citizenship

• Precluded Claims in Diversity: 

Precluded Claims in Diversity and Supplemental Jurisdiction

• § 1367(b), 

  • Claims by existing plaintiffs (but not defendants) against persons made parties under one of the following Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 14 (impleader), 19 (compulsory joinder), 20 (permissive joinder), or 24 (intervention);

  • Claims by persons to be joined as plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 19 or claims by persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 24, in which the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Discretionary Rejection of Supplemental Jurisdiction

§ 1367(c) a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that would otherwise qualify for supplemental jurisdiction in each of the following circumstances:

i) The supplemental claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law;

ii) The supplemental claim substantially predominates over the claims within original federal jurisdiction;

iii) All of the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed; or

iv) In exceptional circumstances, when there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

Permissive Party Joinder

Rule 20 sets forth the circumstances in which a plaintiff may join other plaintiffs in an action, or defendants may be joined in the same action

• Plaintiffs: Rule 20(a)(1), They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

• Defendants: Rule 20(a)(2), Any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and A question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

Schwartz v. Swan

Facts: P injured in two accidents. Driven by different drivers in accidents. P claimed could not determine to what extent each accident contributed to her injuries, filed 4-count complaint and joined all defendants from each accident.. D moved to sever counts, granted by court and later consolidated Driver’s case with P.
Rule of Law:  When a plaintiff suffers injuries in separate accidents caused by different and unrelated tortfeasors, the defendants may be joined in a single action if the plaintiff is unable to apportion the injuries between the occurrences, as the extent of the injuries attributable to each defendant becomes a common question of fact.

Misjoinder, Severance, Consolidation

• Rule 21, penalty for misjoinder of parties is not dismissal, rather court may add or drop a party or may also sever any claim against a party

• Rule 42(a), If actions before the court involve a common question of fact or law, the court may join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions, consolidate the actions, or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay

  • Conversely, a court may order a separate trial of one or more issues, claims (including cross-claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims) for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize. When doing so, the court must preserve any federal right to a jury trial. Rule 42(b).