Kroger Today

1
Kroger Today

• Do courts today have SJ over Mrs. Krogers claim
  against fellow Iowan Owen?
• Remember only source of SJ is 1367.
• Problem 4, p. 761?

• Suppose her anchor claim against OPPD had been
  based on FQ, and then she made the same state
  claim against Iowan Owen.
• SJ?

2
1367 Supposedly Only Codified Kroger

• We are textualists here (otherwise well lose our
  sanity) and the Supremes were (supposedly) in
  Exxon v. Appalalatapaphah

• Well keep going through this process throughout
  the semester for practice, but especially after
  next week well do some exercises and hypos.

3
Compulsory Joinder under Rule 19
4
Four Types of Parties

• Formal or Nominal
• Guardians govt officials judges in mandamus
  proceedings. FRCP 17
• Forgettaboutem
• Proper
• A person who may be joined under FRCP 20 as
  plaintiff or defendant is a proper party.

• Necessary
• A person covered by 19(a) is necessary.
• Obviously, some people who sue or are joined
  under 20 are necessary parties. Whether they
  are necessary or not generally becomes a
  litigated issue only when it wont and cant be
  joined due to lack of SMJ or PJ.
• Indispensable
• A person covered by 19(a) and without whom the
  court cant proceed in light of the factors in
  19(b), is indispensable.
• Three step inquiry to determine whether a
  necessary party is indispensable.

5
3 Steps to Determine Indispensability

• 1. Is nonparty necessary?
• If not, its unnecessary to bother to join them.
• They may be a proper party, but that just means
  joinder would be proper.
• 2. If nonparty is necessary, then ask is
  joinder of that nonparty feasible, in that PJ and
  SMJ are proper?
• If so, nonparty may join voluntarily or court
  must compel joinder.
• Venue twist
• If PJ or SMJ are lacking ?

• 3. Can court proceed in equity and good
  conscience without that nonparty?
• If court can proceed, then it goes forward
  without that party joined.
• If cant in equity in good conscience proceed,
  then the claim is dismissed.

6
1. Is Nonparty a Necessary Party?

• 19(a) requires joinder of a nonparty who is
  subject to PJ and who wont destroy SMJ if
• Without joinder, complete relief cant be given
  to those who are already parties, or
• The nonparty claims an interest in the subject of
  the suit and is so situated that rendering
  judgment without joining nonparty will either
• Impair nonpartys ability as practical matter to
  protect its interest in the subject of the suit,
  or
• Make it substantially likely that those already
  parties will be subject to double, multiple, or
  otherwise inconsistent obligations.

7
Necessary is Narrower than it Sounds

• Temple (762)
• Facts?
• Why wasnt the doctor a necessary party?
• When, if ever, will your typical joint tortfeasor
  be a necessary party?

• What would have to exist for Synthes to have been
  able to implead the doc?
• Was there authority, and jurisdiction, for Temple
  to have sued both Synthes and the doc?

8
If a Nonparty is Necessary

• The court shall order joinder if the nonparty
  wont agree.
• The nonparty may be joined as a defendant, a
  plaintiff, or an involuntary plaintiff.
• Court aligns the party as it ought to be.

• If PJ SMJ exist and nonparty is necessary, but
  joinder makes venue improper, then if the
  nonparty objects, the nonparty is dismissed.
• But case proceeds w/out that party!
• If joinder of a necessary party is not feasible
  (because SMJ is lacking or court lacks PJ and the
  nonparty objects)

9
2. Is Joining Necessary Nonparty Feasible?

• Three Issues
• Join party if venue improper and D objects, see
  chart
• Can court get PJ?
• Does the nonparty have minimum contacts with
  state?
• Does the nonparty contest PJ
• Typical way this comes up plaintiff sues two
  defendants one files 12(b)(2) and is dismissed
  remaining defendant then moves to dismiss for
  failure to join indispensable party under
  12(b)(7).
• Can court get SMJ over the claim?
• OJ
• SJ
• Where FQ is anchor, there will be SJ over claims
  by or against party joined under 19
• Where 1332 is anchor, though, no SJ over claims
  by plaintiffs against person joined under 19 or
  over claims by persons joined under Rule 19 as
  plaintiffs.

10
3. If Joinder Not Feasible

• 4 factors important but overall balancing test
• (1) prejudicial effect of judgment on existing
  parties
• (2) extent to which that prejudice can be
  lessened by the court
• (3) whether any judgment will be adequate
• (4) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate
  remedy if action is dismissed due to nonjoinder.

• If in light of those 4 factors court cant in
  equity and good conscience proceed without
  person, it must dismiss whole case.

11
So Indispensable is Narrow

• An indispensable nonparty is only one (1) who
  is necessary (narrower than it sounds) (2) who
  cant be joined (SMJ PJ, and they object) and
  (3) without whom the court has determined it
  should dismiss the whole case in light of the
  risks to the parties or the nonparty.
• See Yeazell 765 n. 6.
• Joint obligors or obligees
• Ownership of real property
• Guardians, representatives.
• Limited fund cases

12
Helzberg - Indispensability (766)

• What did VWDMSC promise Helzbergs?
• What did Helzberg do when it got wind of a likely
  breach of that promise?
• What did VWDMSC do in response to the suit?
• Why could the court not add Lords?
• Did the district court find Lords was
  indispensable?
• What did the district court do on the merits?
• What is the impact of that order on Lords?

• Why an appeal w/out a final judgment!?
• Watch for appealability of injunctions. War
  Story.
• Lords was a necessary party. Why?
• Why did appellate court affirm that Lords wasnt
  indispensable?
• Based on Yeazells questions on 769, argue that
  the appellate court was wrong.
• Clinton is an unusual case.

13
Problems 772

• 6(a)
• 6(b)
• 6(c)