IGNORE: Joinder

What facts trigger Joinder?

P wants to bring multiple claims against same Defendant in one lawsuit

P must decide whether to join claims to avoid future claim preclusion

What is the general rule for Rule 18 (Joinder of Claims by Plaintiff)?

Plaintiffs may join ALL claims against a single defendant—including independent, alternative, or contingent claims. There is NO "same transaction or occurrence" requirement.

Hypo (Rule 18): P sues D for a car crash. Can P also add a claim against D in the same lawsuit for an unpaid $5,000 loan from three years ago that has nothing to do with the crash?

Yes. Under Rule 18, P can join independent, entirely unrelated claims against the same defendant. (However, P still needs an independent basis for Subject Matter Jurisdiction for that loan claim).

What three limitations or checks must you always consider when a Plaintiff uses Rule 18 broad joinder?

1. Preclusion: Failing to join related claims risks losing them forever.

2. Jurisdiction: Every joined claim MUST have an SMJ basis (Federal Question, Diversity, or Supplemental).

3. Severance (Rule 42(b)): The court can sever claims for trial convenience or to avoid prejudice.

4. Strategy: joining claims can show greater overall harm to a jury.

Hypo (Rule 18 Limits): P sues D in federal court for a federal civil rights violation. P uses Rule 18 to join a state-law defamation claim that occurred five years ago in a different state. What is D's best argument to kick out the defamation claim?

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

While Rule 18 procedurally allows the joinder, the unrelated state claim does not share a "common nucleus of operative fact" with the federal claim, meaning it fails to get Supplemental Jurisdiction (§ 1367).

Argue for Joining the claims and for NOT joining.

For Joining: Rule 18 is broad, consolidation is rewarded. SMJ satisfied with supplemental jurisdiction.

Against Joining: 1367(b) prohibits joining claims that would destroy diversity jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction over each joined defendant must independently exist.

What’s the policy rationale behind Joinder?

Broad joinder encourages Plaintiffs to bring all claims in one comprehensive suit.

What triggers counterclaims?

D brings a claim against P

What happens If Defendant fails to raise a compulsory counterclaim?

Permanent waiver via claim preclusion

What is a Compulsory Counterclaim?

Mandatory to do joinder. Defendant MUST raise claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as plaintiff’s claim

What is a Permissive Counterclaim?

Optional to do joinder. Not compulsory. Unrelated claim.

Rule 13(a):

Do Compulsory Counterclaims have automatic Supplemental Jurisdiction? Why or why not?

What about Permissive Counterclaims?

Yes. Because same transaction or occurrence for both.

No, must have independent SMJ basis - no automatic supplemental jurisdiction.

Are counterclaims and defenses the same?

No

Cordero v. Voltaire (employees case)

• Facts: Employees sued for unpaid wages. Employer counterclaimed for fraud (falsified hours) and theft (stolen tools).

• Holding: Fraud was COMPULSORY (arose from the exact same time-records). Theft was PERMISSIVE (entirely separate facts).

• Policy Note: Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the theft claim to prevent employers from weaponizing federal wage cases as collection forums.

How do we determine whether the counterclaim is Compulsory or Permissive?

Are the underlying facts the same?

Argue Compulsory and Permissive.

Compulsory: Mandatory. Same factual core. Must be joined now or lost forever under preclusion. Applied broadly.

Permissive: Optional. Claims arise from entirely separate facts. Independent SMJ is required. Courts retain discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

In terms of policy, why have compulsory and permissive counterclaims?

Compulsory: Promotes efficiency. Reduces case load for courts.

Permissive: Flexibility.

What facts trigger Cross-Claims Between Co-Defendants?

D1 wants to assert claim against D2 arising from the same transaction/occurrence (typically indemnification or contribution).

Cross-Claims Between Co-Defendants: Rule

Co-defendant MAY assert a cross-claim against another co-defendant IF

1. If the claim arises out of the same plaintiff’ transaction and occurrence OR

2. If it relates to property that is subject to the subject of plaintiff’s action

Are cross claims compulsory or permissive? If you fail to bring a crossclaim against your co-defendant, is the claim precluded?

Permissive—NEVER compulsory. This allows Co-Defendants to point fingers at each other if they CHOOSE to. And if they’d rather team up and defeat P together—they won’t be precluded from pursuing a future claim against each other.

What triggers Permissive Joinder of Parties?