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.
27. Which motion should the foreign corporation file?
A foreign corporation that manufactures cars that are sold in the United States believes the car manufacturer is not defending itself well in the lawsuit. The foreign corporation is concerned that an adverse ruling might generate tort law that will make it and thirty other foreign car manufacturers vulnerable to many lawsuits.
A man, a citizen of State A, sued a car manufacturer, a State B corporation with its principal place of business in State C, in federal district court in State C. Injured in an automobile accident, the man asserted the novel tort theory that car manufacturers should be held strictly liable for losses sustained in accidents because cars are inherently dangerous products.
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
FRCP 18 does not affect the requirements of subject-matter jurisdiction, which must be independently satisfied by the joined claim. However, as a practical matter, the subject-matter jurisdiction requirement will not usually impede the use of joinder.
Generally, the FRCP allow the joinder of all claims between parties and all claims arising out of the same transaction. A plaintiff may join any number and type of claims against a defendant. When multiple plaintiffs or defendants are involved, it is essential that at least one of the claims arises out of a transaction in which all were involved.
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 compulsory joinder does not apply, an absent party may still be permissively joined under FRCP 20. Permissive joinder allows plaintiffs to join together in an action IF:
(i) their claims arise from a single transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; AND
(ii) there is a question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs that will arise in the action.
FRCP 24(b) allows a nonparty to move for permissive intervention if EITHER:
(i) a federal statute provides a conditional right to intervene; OR
(ii) the nonparty has a common question of law or fact between a claim or defense and the main cause of action.
A party seeking permissive intervention must establish its own jurisdictional basis and may not intervene if doing so will destroy diversity between the parties.
Permissive joinder differs from permissive intervention in that joinder under FRCP 20(a) allows an existing party to move to join claims or parties, whereas permissive intervention allows a nonparty to ask to join an action.
B is correct. Permissive intervention is available when a nonparty's claim or defense and the main action share a question of fact or law in common. The foreign corporation arguably «shares with the main action a common question of law or fact» because the man's novel tort liability theory could result in strict liability for the foreign corporation, which manufactures cars that are sold in the U.S.
A is incorrect. As a non-party, the foreign corporation may not file a motion to join as a required party. As an aside, the foreign corporation would not likely qualify as a required party under FRCP 19(a) because the court is able to accord complete relief without its presence, disposing of the case will not practically prevent the foreign corporation from protecting its interests (its claim is regarding the possibility of unfavorable precedent affecting future litigation), and the existing parties do not face multiple liability without joining it.
C is incorrect. As a nonparty to the litigation, the foreign corporation may not submit such a motion. The foreign corporation would need to use FRCP 24 intervention to join the lawsuit that already exists, and then file a motion to certify the class.
D is incorrect. Only parties to the lawsuit may invoke permissive joinder of another party or claim. A nonparty who wishes to join an action, such as the foreign corporation here, must file a motion to intervene.