Wednesday audio--Section A, Section B.
To flesh out the difference between FRCP 18 and FRCP 20 in advance of tomorrow: Joinder of claims under FRCP 18 necessarily involves only two opposing parties (for current purposes, one plaintiff and one defendant) and one or more claims just between them. When you start to talk about additional parties--whether plaintiffs or defendants--you go to FRCP 20(a).
Prepare and review all the material for Joinder of Claims and Parties.
• What are the benefits and drawbacks to broad (but not unlimited) joinder of parties? How do the rules strike the balance between those benefits and drawbacks?
• One definition of "same transaction, or occurrence" is the "Logical Relationship Test." This says that the different claims need not have an "identity of facts," but "the essential facts of the claims must be so logically connected that considerations of judicial economy and fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit."
• What does this mean about the facts giving rise to different claims between different parties?
• What is the defendant's procedural move it believes parties or claims have been improperly joined?
• Be ready to discuss whether joinder of parties and claims is proper in Morgan, Godin, and VOA, applying the text of 18(a) and 20(a) and the above definition of "logical relationship." In particular, be ready to talk through your analysis as if you were writing an essay--Rule, Explanation, Application.
• Consider whether the following additional claims could be included in VOA:
BSO and VOA had a previous deal, from 10 years ago, for the symphony to use VOA photos in a performance. BSO has never paid for the use of those photos.
• Consider whether the following additional claims could be included in Morgan:
Krista Millea wants to bring a products liability claim against WalMart, arising from her purchase of a defective toaster. (Consider whether she can include this claim standing alone and/or along with her Loss of Consortium claims).
Jones was injured in an accident with a different WalMart truck, driven by a different driver, one month after the Morgan accident, on a different stretch of the New Jersey Turnpike.
• How do FRCP 8(d)(2) and (3) affect the VOA complaint? Is the language in ¶¶ 68-74 necessary?
• How do FRCP 19, 24, and preclusion (discussed in the Glannon reading) limit the usual permissiveness of FRCP 18 and 20(a)?
