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.
29. How should the court rule on the rancher's motion to dismiss?
A farmer, a citizen of State A, sued a rancher, a citizen of State B, in federal district court in State B. The farmer asked the court to quiet title to certain property in State B where the rancher currently resides. Although the rancher believes the property was bequeathed to her, she knows that a cousin of hers — a man who is a citizen of State A — believes that the property belongs to him. The rancher filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join the man as an indispensable party.
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.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.
B is correct. If an absent party should but cannot be joined, the court will determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the case should proceed without the absentee, or if the absent party is «indispensable» and dismissal is necessary.
Here, the man has a competing interest in the property and without joining him, he will be unable to litigate his interest and any relief granted would be vulnerable to an attack by the man to enforce his interest. This means the man «should» be joined.
However, joining the man would destroy diversity jurisdiction, which means the court may let the action proceed if it finds that, in equity and good conscience, it should go forward, meaning the man is not an indispensable party.
A is incorrect. The man is from State A, the same state as the farmer (the plaintiff), which means joining the man would destroy diversity between the parties and thus prevents the court from having subject-matter jurisdiction. However, the court still has the option to find that the man is not «indispensable» and therefore that the case should, in equity and good conscience, proceed without him.
C is incorrect. This choice contains a misstatement of law. When a court finds that a party should but cannot be joined, if it then finds that the absent party is «indispensable,» it must dismiss the case. If, however, the court finds that, in equity and good conscience, the case may proceed, then it is concluding that the absentee is not considered «indispensable.»
D is incorrect. This is a misapplication of law. The court does NOT have subject-matter jurisdiction over the man's claim. The man, like the farmer/plaintiff, is a citizen of State A.