Joinders
  	Rule 18:  Joinder of Claims
		1) Claims listed
			1. Orig. claim
			2. Counterclaim
			3. Cross claim
			4. Third party claim
		2) No trxnal nexus
		3) May throw in as many claims as like as long as 
		"opposing parties"
		4) Jxn
			1. Still need 2 run through subj. matter jxn, 
			venue, & pers. 
			2. If 2 claims like SEC & auto collision truly 
			arises under the common nucleus of operative facts then must go 
			through §1367)a
			3. If no common nucleus of fact, then look 4 diversity
		5) Permissive Assertion w/ Res Judicata
			1. Not reqed by the Rule 2 assert
			2. Res judicata prob. where trnxal claims barred 
			whether asserted / not
			3. Hence, people assert b/c of res judicata
  	Harris v. Avery (State Claim)
		1) Code case
		2) Same trxn
		3) D can sue 4 any claims
  	Sporn v. Hudson
		1) Neg. & malicious prosecution
		2) Concerns
			1. Jurys bias by malicious prosecution
			2. Might give punitive instead of compensatory damages
			3. Since prejud., best 2 go forward sep'ly
  	Rule 13:  Counterclaim
		1) Counterclaims
			1. Must rel. 2 subj. matter of the opposing 
			party's claim
			2. Trxnal threshold 2 det. compulsory v. permissive
			3. Any claims against the "opposing party" not P 
			v. D
			4. Cross claims may become counterclaims since 
			co-parties may become "opposing parties"
		2) Compulsory Counterlclaim: Rule 13)a
			1. Must state if arises under the 
			trxn/occurrence; Rule 13)a
			2. Incl's prop. damage 2 (Rush Case)
			3. In diversity & §1367)b--prevents P from doing 
			things so D must assert counterclaims
			4. Preclusive conseq's--Must assert counterclaim 
			in state ct. otherwise can't assert in fed. 
			5. If axn commenced / in another axn, pleader 
			needn't state the claim--Rule 13)a)1
		3) Reply
			1. If denominated as counterclaim, P must reply 
			2. If not reply, then defaults
		4) Omitted Counterclaims
			[1] Discovery
				1. Rule 13)f & Rule 15--May amend when 
				just. req's
			[2] After Trial
				1. Rule 13)e--Claim matured / acquired by 
				the pleader after serving a pleading
				2. Can B counterclaim by suppl. pleading
				3. Discretion of the ct.
			[3] Rule 15)c
				1. If rel's back 2 the orig. pleading the 
				claim/def. asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the 
				cont., trxn/occurrence
				2. If trxnally rel. back, o.k.
			[4] S/L
				1. Erie & state law
				2. State law seems 2 gov. if state 
				provides S/L
  	Cross Claim
		1) State Subst. & Fed. Proced. Law
			1. If diversity / suppl. claims, then must go 
			through Erie 2 see if state allows subst. law such as contrib. / indem.
			2. Just b/c Fed. proced. doesn't mean have C/A
			3. If no state subst. rt 4 indem., then can ask 4 
			dismissal 4 failure 2 state a claim:  Rule 12
			4. Rule 13)g, Rule 13)h, & Rule 14 4 proced. of 
			cross claims & impleading
		2) Jxn
			1. Always go through jxnal analysis again
			2. Most subj. matter jxn probably from suppl. 
			through same trxn
		3) Rule 13)g
			1. Claim against co-party
			2. Must arise out of the trxn
			3. May incl. a claim that's the suit
			4. May state not must so permissive
		4) Rule 13)h
			1. Join parties by Rule 19 / 20 if counter claim 
			/ cross claim
  	Goodhart v. US Lines Co.
		1) Not really a good law
		2) Gen'ly ct. doesn't have the discretion 2 not allow party 
		2 come in by Rule 14
		3) Rules allow regardless of prejud.
		4) When it's a good law
			1. If go over the X limit & ask the ct. 2 use discretion
			2. D can still sue ee (employee) indep'ly
  	Impleader
		1) Rule 14
			1. P can bring claim against the person impleaded
			2. P may not must assert trxnally rel'ed claim 
			against 3PD (3rd party D)
			3. Again Erie 4 state & fed if fed. claim 4 subj. 
			matter jxn
		2) §1367:  Suppl. Jxn
			1. No suppl. jxn over P's claims against persons 
			made parties by Rule 14 (§1367)b) destroying diversity
			2. 3PD may assert trxnally rel'ed claims b/c was 
			dragged in
			3. The statute covers P not 3PD & 3PD not 
			considered P's 4 this statute
			4. Once 3PD sues P, open quest. whether P can sue 3PD
				[1] Apply plain meaning of statute, P 
				can't counterclaim against 3PD
				[2] Cong. didn't mean 2 incl. counterclaim 
				in suppl. jxn b/c there's sep. statute of counterclaim so P 
				can counterclaim
  	Joinder of Parties
		1) Continuum of Joinders
			1. No joinder possible b/c not w/in Rule 20; no 
			trxnal nexus
			2. Joinder permissible by Rule 20; trxnal nexus
			3. Ct. trumps P's choice & strangers (S) must B 
			joined by Rule 19)a; S may B P / D
			4. Cases where must join but can't by Rule 19)b 
			can cont. w/o joinder / dismiss; if dismiss case, then S called 
			indispensable party
		2) Ryder v. Jefferson Hotel Co. (SC Case)
			1. Husb. & wife as guests so by Rule 20 wouldve allowed
			2. Was a state case
		3) Tanbro Fabrics Corp. v. Beaunit Mills, Inc. (NY, Yarn case)
			1. Ideal case 4 joinder 2 sue both mfgr. & processor
			2. Won't get inconsistent jury verdict
		4) Sun-X Glass Tinting of Mid-Wisconsin, Inc. v. Sun-X 
		Intl Inc.
			1. Eight people joined but sep. b/c defraud indep'ly
			2. Couldn't join b/c didn't state commonality
		5) Akely v. Kinnicutt 
			1. Probably should've been class axn case since 
			193 P's
			2. Still satisfy same commonality by same fraud
		6) Rule 20 v. Rule 42)a
			1. Joinder of parties harder than consolidation
			2. Joinder req's trxnal nexus & commonality of law/fact
			3. Consolidation req's only commonality of law/fact
		7) Rule 20 v. Rule 19
			1. Rule 20 only permissive b/c "may" & subj. 2 
			ct's discretionary
			2. Rule 19 is mandatory joinder
			3. If reinterp. 19, would swallow up 20 joinders 
			but ct. not do that 
			4. Joint & sev. not 19)a case
			5. Rule 20 guides but subj. 2 how interp. Rule 19
		8) Rule 19)a
			1. Sub 1--Join if relief can't B accorded but not 
			usually fit this b/c P won't complain of no relief if orig'ly not want 
			joinder
			2. Sub 2)ii--join if subst. risk of multiple 
			oblgn but if P didn't care, then ct. shouldn't care; care more 4 D but 
			they could've joined by Rule 13)h, Rule 14, etc.
			3. Sub 2)i--Imp. category:  absence as a pract. 
			matter may impair/impede persons ability 2 protect int.; not 
			res judicata but pract. matter such as stare decisis; if broad 
			interp, can incl lot
		9) Rule 19)b Sits
			1. If fit 19)a but can't join, then nec. party; 
			jxnal prob's usually
			2. Consider 4 factors 4 dismissing / cont'ing w/o 
			joinder in equity & good consc.
			3. Imp. factor--if another forum, then go there; 
			adeq. remedy if dismissed
			4. Others --lesson prejud., adeq. judgment w/o 
			join, & prejud. 2 orig. parties
		10) Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson 
		(Sup. Ct.)
			1. If Ductcher joins, subj. matter diversity destroyed
			2. Since can't go anywhere if dismiss (S/L run), 
			can det. lesson prejud. in equity & good consc. so not dismiss
			3. Pragmatic approach & called Dutcher nec. party
		11) Dismissal of Nonjoinder Proced.:  Rule 12)b)7
			1. Failure 2 join a party under Rule 19
			2. Not waived if didn't set this up 1st X
  	Interpleader
		1) Def.
			1. Usual case, when owe but don't know who 2 give 
			$ 2, then interplead 2 parties & give $ 2 ct.
			2. Solves no res judicata prob. b/c w/both 
			parties in 1 trial, won't need 2 pay twice
		2) Rule 22
			1. Proced. 4 interpleading but still subj. 2 			
			jxnal probs
			2. More problematic w/diversity b/c need compl. 		
			diversity, min. contact, & amt.
			3. Last resort
			4. Use only if claimants in same state / fed. 
			quest. jxn
		3) Statutory Interpleader:  §1335, 1397, & 2361
			1. Min. diversity req'ed by §1335 inc's jxnal amt. 
			of $500 & if 2/more claimants from dif. states
			2. Min. diversity Const. by Tashire Case
			3. Specif. venue so look @ §1397 not §1391; 
			anywhere claimants reside
			4. Nationwide jxn & serv. by marshall by §2361	 
			but no subst. law
			5. Restraining order 2 enjoin any state/fed. proceedings
			6. Can get rsbl attys fee
			7. Can only use the statutes 4 §1335, min. 
			diversity stat. interpleading not w/Rule 22
		4) X Frame
			1. If @ trial interplead, o.k.
			2. If after trial, probs w/res judicata so can't
  	Intervention:  Rule 24
		1) Sub a
			1. As of rt. if X'ly & not adeq. rep. &
			2. Statute gives rt. / int. rel'ing 2 the 
			prop./trxn which is the subj. of axn & pract. matter impair/impede
		2) Sub b
			1. Permissive intervention
			2. No need 4 inadeq. rep.
			3. Discretion 2 consider delay: unduly delay / 
			prejud. party's rt.
			4. Need same quest. of law / fact OR statute
			5. B/c discretion, hard 2 appeal
		3) Atlantis Devt Corp v. US
			1. Res judicata not essential 4 intervention but 
			if find it, ez'est case
			2. Stare decisis cause pract. impairment; en banc 
			rare & can't go 2 another circuit
			3. Not dec. merits 4 intervention hearing
			4. Need precise int.:  same piece of prop, int. 
			in very trxn b/c not want lots of suits
		4) Rule 19 & 24
			1. Usually 19)a then 24)a
			2. Before 1966, had 2 care about jural rel. but 
			now only care about trial strategy & pract. stuff
			3. Same lang.'s but dif. 
				[1] 24 req's adeq. rep. but not 19)a
				[2] Someone else wants 2 come in but 
				forced in 19)a 
		5) Smuck v. Hobson (class axn black kids; parents wanted 
		2 intervene)
			1. Allowed but limited 2 appealing issues that 
			affect parents
		6) Provident Case Sugg.
			1. If had rt. 2 intervene, not come in later
			2. Case in 1989 w/black firefighters & consent decree
				[1] Cong. unhappy that strangers could 
				intervene so passed statute; if title 7 case, 		
				judgment, & S had actual knowledge but not intervene, then bound
				[2] Even if no actual knowledge, 2nd 
				case, orig. party fight 2nd X loses, orig. dec. holds

Class Axn
  	Ethics
		1) Attys duty 2 Class not 2 Client so should inform 
		client before dec.
		2) Judges Resp.
			1. Unsually not care if people fail 2 make motion 
			/ stipulate wrong facts b/c of jud. eff.
			2. Since bind absent people, dif.
			3. Care about what other judges say
			4. Can dismiss atty & get another
  	Rule 23)a:  Prereq. of Class
		1) Sub 1:  Numerosity
			1. Joinder impract.
			2. Over 40 good, under 25 not good--gen'ly good reqt
		2) Sub 2:  Commonality
			1. Common quest. of law / fact 2 the class
			2. Not that the application of the law is the same
		3) Sub 3:  Typicality
			1. Diffictul criteria b/c merges 1,2,& 4
			2. Claims of rep. typical 2 class
			3. If suppl. state claim (allowed usually) & req's 
			lots of dif. state laws, then may not B typical
		4) Sub 4:  Adeq. Rep.
			1. Indiv. rep. adeq'ly & member of class
			2. No conflict of class
			3. Adeq. atty rep. b/c bind strangers who didn't 
			reach out 2 the atty
  	Collateral Attack
		1) Strangers Not Bound
			1. Not frowned upon
			2. S's can always attack in later suits
  	Trial Strategies
		1) D tries 2 kill the class 
			1. Indiv's won't file
			2. S/L would run
		2) If can't kill, try 2 broaden & use the class
			1. If win, can get res judicata of everybody
			2. If lose, most cases will B settled
  	Tacking 3 mo's if dismissal
		1) S/L runs, but if class axn improperly brought, tack 3 mo's
  	Rule 23)b:  Class Axn Categories
		1) Not mutually excl. & no jural rel.
		2) b)3 (practitioners case)
			1. Common law / fact predominates & class axn 
			superior vehicle 4 eff. adjudication
			2. Manageability
			3. Rule 20, trxnal nexus rel.
			4. Only $ damage
			5. Discretionary class
			6. Rsbl notice & Indiv. notice if rsbly id'able by 
			Rule 23)c)2
			7. Option of opting out
				[1] If not opt out, then bound unless 
				collateral attack
				[2] If 2 many people opt out, then look @ 
				numerosity & superior vehicle again
		3) b)2 (civil rts cases)
			1. Injunctive
			2. Little $ o.k. but if a lot turn 2 b)3
		4) b)1)a
			1. Focus on prejud. 2 those opposing the class
			2. Only $ damage, then can't B this class
			3. Incompatible stand. of cond. results from 
			indiv. cases
			4. All bound & no notice
		5) b)1)b (limited fund case)
			1. Seldom used
			2. Indiv. members as pract. matter B hurt
			3. Ex. of punitive damages where 1st people would 
			eat up $ so can't pay next people
			4. No notice
  	Certification of Class
		1) Ct. certif. order
			1. Rule 23)c)1 says as soon as practic., ct. 
			shall det.
			2. No merit heraing
			3. Conditional order so not appealable @ this X
  	Res Judicata:  Rule 23)c)3
  	Sub Classes:  Rule 23)c)4
  	Dismissal w/Cts Approval:  Rule 23)e
		1) Cant dismiss w/o approval
		2) Must look @ fairness
		3) All notified in such manner as ct dir's
  	Attys Fee
		1) Amer. Rule of Class Axn
			1. If big $ damage, ct. will grant fee b/c rep'ed 
			people not client
			2. Probs in calculation like hrs, multipliers, etc.
  	Hansberry v. Lee (IL State Case)
		1) Not Binding Strangers
			1. Hansberry (H) not bound b/c int. not rep'ed in 
			1st case
			2. Can't bind strangers 2 stipulations if not rep'ed
		2) Bound People
			1. Parties 2 litigation
			2. Adeqly rep'ed by parties who R present
			3. Actually participated in the conduct of the 
			litigation so vitual parties
			4. If joint so jural rel.
			5. Present but absent cases where legally 
			entitled the former 2 stand in judgment 4 the latter
		3) Const. Consideration
			1. Fourteenth Amend. of due process 4 min. stand. 
			of decency of fairness, trial, etc.
			2. Can't bind people not adeq'ly repe'd
			3. Can't rep. people antagonistic 2 U
  	Gonzales v. Cassidy
		1) Collateral Attack
			1. S attacked the judgement in 2nd suit
			2. In 2nd suit, S has rt. 2 det. if class axn met 
			& Const.
			3. But pract'ly, usually give deference
  	Eisner Case
		1) Unmanageable Notices
			1. Class b)3 axn but couldn't give serv. 2 3/4 
			mill. people
  	Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (Ct. of Appeals)
		1) b)2 Class w/o injunction
			1. First certified as b)2 but didn't need injunction
			2. Can't D 2 b)3 class axn b/c of unilateral 
			activity of D
  	Gen. Telephone Co. v. Falcon (Sup. Ct.)
		1) Probs
			1. Looks like promotion case not hiring case
			2. Can't go into EEOC, rt. 2 sue, sue, & then 
			broaden 2 incl. hiring 
			3. No factual allegations
			4. Hiring means apply & then not hired so wrong 2 
			put "would've applied" in class definition
		2) Art III won't allow promotion & hiring as same class 
		3) Subclasses
			1. Sep. into subclasses w/rep. 4 each 
			2. Can join them by Rule 20 & trxnal nexus
			3. Need dif. attys
			4. Can't rep. the world b/c everybody has own int.
		4) Holding
			1. Indiv. case won but not class 4 promotion
		5) Indiv. Suits After Class Axn
			1. A member of class can sue after 4 indiv. but 
			not gen. (Cooper Case)
  	Diversity Probs
		1) Art III allows U 2 pick & choose class rep. 2 have 
		dif. cit.
		2) Can't add up min. jxnal amt. where rts. R sev. & jural rel.
		3) Opposite effects on cit. & min. jxnal amt.
		4) Zahn Case
			1. Can't have pendant jxn over those who don't
			2. Policy of not want a lot of diversity cases
			3. Can't add up min. jxnal amt. 
			4. Not overruled by sec. 1367 when sep. parties; 
			can argue sub b didn't carve out Zahn
		5) Snyder Case
			1. Don't want 2 aggregate min. jxnal amt.
  	Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts (state ct)
		1) Absent P's Min. Contact
			1. D raised jxnal pt. b/c wanted res judicata
			2. Not req. P's min. contact b/c not same as D 
			having min. contact
			3. Not req. opt in & aff. opt out b/c FRCP also 
			has it so can't declare state opt out unConst.
			4. This holding only 4 P class axn & $ damage; 
			not 4 equity relief & not D class axn b/c of grave due process prob.
		2) Choice of Law
			1. Apply law where int. start 2 run & what the 
			rate is
			2. Assumed that Kansas law dif. from OK, TX, etc. 
			4 conflict of law
			3. Kansas can't apply Kansa law 2 trxns not rel'ing 
			2 Kansas
			4. Law may B dif. 4 each trxn
			5. States have a lot of latitude b/c not dev'ed much
		3) Const'al Underpinnings of Choice of Law
			1. Due process clause:  can't deprive life, etc. 
			if no contact whatsoever, & apply law, then violates
			2. FF & CC:  must apply in some case of other 	
			states law

Separation
  	Rule 42)b:  Sep. Trials
		1) Rsns 4 sep. trials
			1. In furtherance of conv. / 2 avoid prejud.
			2. Econ. / expedite
		2) Still jury trial 
		3) Claims list same as Rule 18
		4) Sep. of State Claims
			1. If violate subj. matter jxn, state claims 
			should go 2 state after sever
			2. If diversity, sever, then keep in fed ct.
			3. If suppl., sever, then 2 state ct.
			4. Issue preclusion prob.; Sup. Clause says state 
			must give issue precl.
  	Rule 21:  Misjoinder & Non-joinder
		1) Improper joinder severed not dismissed