JOINDER
FUNCTION TEST
RULE
(1) Claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence
AND
20 Permissive Party Joinder
(2) raise at least one common question of law or fact
(1) Action pending before the same court
AND
42 Consolidation
(2) involve a common question of law or fact
19 Compulsory Party Joinder
19(a) Is the party necessary & indispensable? Yes, if: (1) no complete relief available without him, OR
(2) he has an interest in the suit that may be practically impaired, OR
(3) current party would be subject to multiple or inconsistent liability unless he
is joined.
19(b) Is joinder of the party feasible? Yes, if: (1) court has personal jurisdiction, AND
(2) joinder would not destroy diversity, AND
(3) proper venue.
If joinder is not feasible, then court decides whether suit should proceed without the party,
or whether the suit should be dismissed.
(1) Direct, legally-protectable interest in the suit, AND
(2) Interest will be practically impaired if intervention is refused, AND
24(a) Intervention as of Right
(3) Interests are not already being adequately represented by a current party
Potential Intervenor must have a claim or defense with at least one common question of
24(b) Permissive Intervention law or fact
HIGHLY DISCRETIONARY
JURISDICTION
FUNCTION TEST
SECTION
(1) Well-pleaded complaint rule (from Mottley): Federal issue must arise as part of
Π’s well-pleaded complaint
§1331 Federal Question Jurisdiction
(2) Creation Test (by O.W. Holmes): Federal jurisdiction exists where federal law
creates the right to sue and the remedy.
(1) Complete diversity: everyone lined up as Π must be diverse from everyone lined
up as Δ
§1332 Diversity Jurisdiction (2) Amount in controversy: $75,000
Claims may not be aggregated by co-parties, but one party may aggregate his
own claims
§1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction
§1367(a) What is supplemental jurisdiction? Once you have an anchor claim properly within the federal court’s jurisdiction under
§1331 or §1332, you may bring in all other claims which are connected to it by a
common nucleus of operative fact (Gibbs test)
§1367(b) May not destroy diversity: If the anchor claim is under §1332, claims by plaintiffs may not be supplementally joined
when doing so would violate the diversity requirements.
TRANSFER
FUNCTION TEST
SECTION
“Forum Non Conveniens” Case may be transferred from a federal district having proper venue to another federal
district where the claim could have been brought initially (must have proper venue &
personal jurisdiction)
§1404
Standard: Convenience of the parties & in the interests of justice (HIGHLY DISCRETIONARY)
Choice of Law: Law of Transferor jurisdiction follows the case
Improper Venue A federal district lacking proper venue may either dismiss the case, OR, if it be in the
best interests of justice, may transfer to a federal district that does have proper venue
§1406
Choice of Law: Law of Transferee jurisdiction applies
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Permits cases pending in separate federal forums to be consolidated to one federal
district for pretrial procedure only
§1407
Standard: Cases must share a common factual issue
DOCTRINE REASON FOR ABSTENTION BASICS
(1) Unclear, ambiguous and unsettled issue of state law, AND
(2) When the ambiguity is resolved, the federal constitutional issue may go away
Uncertain or ambiguous issue Results in a stay, not a dismissal, though party must make an England Reservation to remove the
of state law res judicata bar to returning to federal court.
Pullman
(federalism concern) Most states have statutes allowing federal courts to certify the issue to the state supreme court
EXCEPTIONS: (1) Time is of the essence
(2) State court procedures clearly inadequate
We don’t want the federal courts interfering with complex state regulatory schemes, so the federal
Complex state regulatory
court will dismiss the case.
scheme
Burford
Typically happens only with injunctive relief, not damages, as damages don’t tend to involve
(federalism concern)
complex regulatory schemes.
Used for criminal, quasi-criminal (zoning), and state judgment enforcement proceedings.
Must be a pending state proceeding.
Ongoing / pending state
proceedings EXCEPTIONS: (1) If state acts in bad faith to harass someone
Younger
(2) State statute involved is clearly unconstitutional
(federalism concern) (3) Unusual circumstances where state decision-maker is clearly biased
Steffel Gap: Time between when state prosecution is imminent but no state action is actually
pending yet.
A stay in the exercise of wise judicial administration to avoid duplicative litigation.
IN GENERAL, we allow parallel state & federal proceedings to both proceed!
Avoid duplicative litigation
Colorado
FACTORS: (1) Order in which proceedings filed
River
(efficiency concern) (2) Whether there is any property (res) over which either court has taken control
(3) Which, if either, forum is more convenient
(4) Avoiding piecemeal litigation
(5) If a federal question is involved, that weighs against abstention
Rooker- The lower federal courts may not be used as courts of appeals for state judgments
federalism concerns
Feldman
RULE 23 PART / SECTION DEFINITION / BASICS
Prerequisites for all class actions
Should there be a class? (1) Numerosity: class so numerous that joinder of all parties is impracticable
(2) Commonality: There are questions of law or fact common to the class
(a)
Who is the proper class rep? (3) Typicality: Claims / defenses of representative are typical of claims / defenses of the class
(4) Adequate Representation: Representative parties will fairly & adequately protect the
interest of the class
The prosecution of separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of
inconsistent or varying adjudications and could establish incompatible standards of conduct for
Incompatible Standards Class the party opposing the class.
(b)(1)(A)
(mandatory) Usually injunctive, so may also often be packaged as a (b)(2) class
Relatively rare, as truly incompatible standards are relatively rare
Limited Fund Class The disposition of one claimant’s claim could have a negative impact on a later claimant’s claim
You don’t want the “early feeders at the trough” to exhaust a finite fund and essentially “freeze-
(mandatory) out” the later claimants.
Truly limited fund? Must be (a) genuinely limited by more than just the parties’ agreement; (b) the whole of the
(b)(1)(B) inadequate fund must be used, and (c) claimants within the class must be treated equitably.
Limited by Law: (1) Statutory limitation or cap
(2) Punitive overkill / limited generosity
Limited by Fact: Assets available are less than the aggregate of claims
Injunctive Class Party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,
making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the
(mandatory) class as a whole
(b)(2)
Damages? Damages are available only if they flow mechanically from the objective evidence related to the
injunction. The predominant relief sought must be injunctive / declaratory.
In addition to all of Rule 23(a)’s prerequisites, a (b)(3) class must also have:
Voluntary Class
(1) Predominance of common issues, AND
(b)(3)
[Note: Predominance must typically be determined prior to issue subclassing]
(usually for monetary damages)
(2) Superiority of class action to other methods of handling the litigation (i.e., separate suits)