02.24

Introduction to Joiner and Intervention

  • Discussion about student hosting from Loyola Chicago Law School as part of a Health Justice project.

Overview of Rule 19: Joinder of Parties

  • Concept of necessary parties and their implication in federal court.
  • Three Steps of Joinder:
    1. Determine party necessity under Federal Rule 19(a).
    2. If a party is indispensable, the claim must be dismissed.
    3. Assess the risk of inconsistent judgments.

Necessary vs. Indispensable Parties

  • Necessary Party: Must be joined if feasible.
  • Indispensable Party: Must be included to avoid prejudicial effects on existing parties.
  • Example Scenario: Hardy as a potential necessary party with joint ownership claims.
  • Jurisdiction Limits: A court cannot compel non-parties.

Rule 19(a) Implications

  • Jurisdiction Issues: If a party is not included, the court has no jurisdiction.
  • Multiple options of Rule 19 can be implicated in litigation.

Supplemental Jurisdiction (Rule 1367)

  • Issues with Complete Diversity:
    • Lack of complete diversity may prevent a suit from moving forward.
    • If parties destroy complete diversity, supplemental claims become infeasible.

Rule 19(b) - Indispensable Parties

  • Legal Weasel Words: Terms like "equity" and "good conscience" come into play regarding justice and practicality.
  • Indispensable Party Definition: A party whose absence would be prejudicial to existing parties or to the party itself.
  • Practical Application: The court may avoid dismissal if it can limit judgment's impact.

Interaction Between Joinder Rules

  • Rule 19 rarely comes into play for well-structured transactions.
  • Interaction with Counterclaims and Crossclaims:
    • Rule 13(h) refers to the need for Rule 19 or 20 when necessary parties need to be joined.

Intervention (Rule 24)

  • Definition of Intervention: A party not initially involved seeks to join litigation.
  • Rule 24(a) - Right to Intervene:
    • Intervention granted by statute if they timely request.
    • Example: United States can intervene against challenges of its own laws.
  • Rule 24(b) - Permissive Intervention: Granting discretion to the court when common legal questions exist.

Interpleader (Rule 22 and Statutory Interpleader)

  • Purpose of Interpleader: To bring together all parties that may have claims to a specific stake, such as life insurance policies.
  • Illustrative Example: An escrow holder without ownership wanting all claimants to sort out claims.

Overview of Injunctions

  • Nature of Litigation: Litigation can take a long time, leading to the need for timely relief.
  • Types of Injunctions:
    • Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) and Preliminary Injunctions.

TROs and Preliminary Injunctions

  • TROs:
    • Can be granted quickly with limited notice to the defendant in emergency situations.
    • Duration: Typically last up to 14 days, transitioning to more extended preliminary injunction.
    • Standard Requirement: Establish certain proof or arguments before obtaining a TRO or injunction.
  • Due Process Consideration: The balance between immediate harm to the plaintiff and the fairness to the defendant before a full hearing has occurred.

Grounds for Injunctions

  • Irreparable Harm: The standard requires that the harm can't be remedied simply by monetary compensation.
    • Examples of irreparable harm:
    1. Threatened destruction of real property.
    2. Violation of trade secrets.
    3. Domestic violence scenarios.

Factors for Granting Preliminary Injunctions

  1. Likelihood of success on the merits.
  2. Suffering irreparable harm.
  3. Balance of equities tips in favor of the plaintiff.
  4. Public interest considerations.

Key Supreme Court Cases Related to Preliminary Injunctions

  • Notable Case: Case involving the military and environmental impacts on marine wildlife due to sonar use.
    • Lower courts found near certainty of harm, but the Supreme Court reversed due to lack of clear criteria for judgement.
  • The distinction needs to be made between ‘possibility’ and ‘likelihood’ in harm and success standards.

Conclusion on Injunctions

  • Administrative and legal challenges accompany seeking injunctions.
  • Nationwide injunctions are now questioned by the Supreme Court, emphasizing constraints on overreaching authority of lower courts.

Wrap Up

  • Next steps will include discussions on discovery as related to the broader litigation and ongoing injunction discussions.