Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
24. Should the court grant the manufacturer's motion to dismiss?
The state law governing the claim allows for joint and several liability.
The man brought a single-count products liability complaint in State A federal district court against the manufacturer of the pacemaker, a State B corporation, seeking $125,000 in damages. The district court had both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the man's lawsuit against the manufacturer. The manufacturer claimed that any injuries sustained by the man were caused by the negligence of the surgeon who implanted the pacemaker and filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join a required party.
A man from State A had a pacemaker implanted by a surgeon who was licensed to practice only in State A, where he performed the surgery on the man. The surgery was unsuccessful and the pacemaker failed.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Compulsory joinder applies to «required» parties (formerly called «necessary» parties). FRCP 19(a) lays out the steps for determining whether a party is required and therefore falls under compulsory joinder.
FRCP 19 states that joinder is required for any person (i.e., they are deemed a «required party») who either:
(i) is required for the court to be able to accord complete relief among the existing parties; OR
(ii) has such an important interest in the case such that NOT joining them will either:
cause them a practical impairment or impediment in protecting their interest; ORexpose an existing party to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent liability.If a party is deemed «required» or «necessary,» then joinder is «compulsory,» meaning the required party should be joined. However, the court must also ensure that joinder of the required party will not destroy its jurisdiction.
If the required party cannot be joined for any reason, such as because their joinder will destroy jurisdiction, the court must make a choice: whether «in equity and good conscience,» the case should proceed without the required party. OR, if the absent (required) party is actually «INDISPENSABLE,» meaning without them, the court should dismiss the case entirely.
To determine whether the absent (required) party is INDISPENSABLE, warranting a dismissal, the court examines the following factors:
the extent of any prejudice to the absent party or existing parties following a judgment;whether such prejudice may be reduced or abated by provisions in the judgment, relief offered, or other avenues;whether a judgment issued without the absent party will be adequate; ANDif the case is dismissed for nonjoinder, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate alternative remedy.C is correct. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a potential defendant who might be jointly and severally liable is not a required party for purposes of the federal rules. See Camp v. Gress, 250 U.S. 308 (1919). Therefore, the manufacturer may not successfully move for dismissal on this basis because the surgeon is not a required party.A is incorrect. The possibility of joint and several liability does not automatically render the surgeon a required party. Even if the surgeon were a required party, the court would have some discretion in deciding whether to dismiss a suit even if the surgeon could not be joined.
The court may still determine whether the suit should proceed in equity and good conscience without a required party (or, in the alternative, if the case should be dismissed because the required party is considered indispensable).
B is incorrect. As explained above, a potential defendant who might be jointly and severally liable is not considered a required party for purposes of the federal rules. The lack of jurisdiction over a party who is not a required party will not justify dismissal.
D is incorrect. The possibility of a third-party complaint does not affect the question of whether the case should be dismissed for failure to join a party. While it is possible that the manufacturer could bring a third-party complaint, it is under no obligation to do so.