Friday, January 13, 2017

For Wednesday -- Section A

Friday audio. We are getting great participation from about 10-15 people. I need to hear from more people during class discussions.

We continue with Joinder of Parties and Claims, where our focus will be on FRCP 18(a), 20(a), and 21 (although obviously read everything). What are the benefits and drawbacks to the sort of broad joinder created by these rules? Why are the different rules for joinder of claims under FRCP 18 as opposed to parties under FRCP 20.

Consider what role FRCP 18 and 20 are playing in each of our Complaints. Be ready to discuss whether the claims and parties in our Complaints all properly joined and why?

Consider the following additional hypos:

1) Imagine that Krista Millea has a products liability claim against Walmart over a defective appliance she purchased there. Can she bring that claim in this action? What if Krista only had the products claim and not the loss of consortium claim?

2) Imagine Smith was in an accident on a different day on the NJ Turnpike with a truck driven by a different Walmart driver. Could he join the lawsuit in Morgan?

3) A and B are a same-sex couple who want to marry and are denied a marriage license by X (the clerk of that county). H and J are a same-sex couple who want to marry and also are denied a marriage license by X. Can A, B, H, and J join together to sue X?

4) Mr. McCormick was drinking one evening at a bar owned by Huls. While driving home from the bar, he is killed when he is in an collision with a truck driven by Kopmann. Mrs. McCormick wants to bring a lawsuit with two claims:
   1) v. Huls for a violation of the Dram Shop Act (a statute imposing liability on a bar for injuries involving patrons who leave intoxicated)
   2) v. Kopmann for Negligence (in a state where the plaintiff must prove she was not contributorily negligent).