43. Should the court grant the defendants' motion to dismiss?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 18(a) provides that a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or a third-party claim, «may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.»

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.

Once joinder of plaintiffs or defendants has occurred, the court has considerable discretion under FRCP 20(b) to arrange the proceedings so as to not cause undue inconvenience or prejudice to any party (e.g., separate trials). FRCP 21, governing misjoinder, states: «Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party. "

D is correct. Joinder is proper where the claims arise from a single transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and there is a common question of law or fact among all plaintiffs that will arise.

In this case, the manufacturer and dealer were misjoined because the claims against them did not arise out of a single transaction or occurrence or set of transactions or occurrences, nor is there any indication of a common question of law or fact. The claims against the manufacturer arise out of problems with the car (exhaust system and airbags) that are entirely distinct from the problems that give rise to the claims against the dealer-servicer (ignition). The fact that one car is involved is not enough to turn this into a «series.» There would be no efficiencies gained by keeping these claims together.

The proper remedy, however, is not a dismissal, but to sever the claims. FRCP 21 specifically states that misjoinder of parties is NOT a ground for dismissing an action, but it is within the court's discretion to sever the claims and require the plaintiffs to bring separate lawsuits. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(b).

A is incorrect. It would be improper for the court to dismiss the lawsuit based on misjoinder. Although it is true that the defendants have been improperly joined here, under FRCP 21, the proper remedy is not to dismiss the lawsuit altogether. The only proper remedy would be to sever the claims, as explained above.

B is incorrect. Although it may be true that the manufacturer is not liable for the actions of the servicing dealer, that fact alone does not mean that the parties have been improperly joined. FRCP 20 does not require that the joined parties be liable to one another.

C is incorrect. This answer is only partially correct. Although it is true that misjoinder is not a basis to dismiss the lawsuit, it is not true that the defendants are not misjoined. On the contrary, they are misjoined because the claims against them do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. The misjoinder should be remedied by severing the claims, as courts have wide discretion to do so.