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.
45. Should the court grant the disc jockeys' motion to sever for misjoinder?
The disc jockeys moved to sever the record label's suit for improper joinder, as well as to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In support of their motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the disc jockeys argued for an interpretation of the relevant federal law that excepted first-time violators from liability.
A record label sued 10 disc jockeys in a single suit in federal court alleging that, in violation of federal law, the disc jockeys «pirated» music that the record label sought to distribute in exchange for payment. The disc jockeys did not know one another and did not communicate with one another when they engaged in the alleged piracy over a six-month period. Each disc jockey took the position that he or she was a first-time violator.
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
Two kinds of joinder are provided by the FRCP: Rule 20 permissive joinder and Rule 19 compulsory joinder.
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.
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.
B is correct. The court should grant the motion to sever because the record label failed to assert, against the disc jockeys, a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or a series of transactions or occurrences. The facts state that the disc jockeys did not know one another or communicate during the period of alleged piracy. Permissive joinder requires that multiple parties can only be joined together if the claims against them come from the same transaction or occurrence and that there is a question of fact or law common to all the parties.
A is incorrect. This is the correct conclusion, but incorrect legal reasoning. The court should grant the disc jockeys' motion to sever because of misjoinder, but not because there is no common question of fact OR law. The question of law—whether the relevant federal law exempts first-time violators from liability—is a question common to the disc jockeys (though fewer than all might be entitled to that exemption). However, it is the lack of a claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence (or series of the same) that prevents joinder from being proper here.
C is incorrect. Nothing in the fact pattern indicates that the disc jockeys worked in tandem when allegedly pirating music from the record label such that joinder would be proper. The defendants did not know one another or communicate with one another. As such, no evidence supports a finding that the record label's claim against each of the disc jockeys arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions (or occurrences).
D is incorrect. Even if the court were to postpone ruling on the motion to sever until it decided whether the complaint states a claim (so that it could dismiss all of the claims if it decided that the complaint failed), it would not follow that the motion to sever should be denied if the court chooses to postpone ruling on it until it determines whether the complaint should be dismissed.