Joinder, Class Actions and Discovery: every key term you need (+ practice quiz)
25 flashcard terms for Civil Procedure Topic 6, written to match the course framework. Study them here, then drill them as interactive flashcards, or test yourself with the 15-question quiz — free, no account needed.
A party asserting a claim may join as many claims as it has against an opposing party, whether or not the claims are related, subject to jurisdictional requirements.
Rule 20 permissive party joinder
Plaintiffs or defendants may be joined when claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and share a common question of law or fact.
Same transaction or occurrence test
The logical relationship standard used across joinder rules, asking whether the claims share operative facts such that trying them together promotes efficiency and fairness.
Compulsory counterclaim
Under Rule 13(a) a counterclaim arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing claim must be pleaded or it is lost in later litigation.
Permissive counterclaim
Under Rule 13(b) any unrelated claim against an opposing party may be pleaded, but it needs an independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction because it lacks factual overlap.
Crossclaim
Under Rule 13(g) a claim against a coparty is allowed only if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or relates to the property at issue.
Rule 14 impleader
A defending party may bring in a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it, typically on indemnity or contribution theories.
Required party
Under Rule 19(a) a person must be joined if complete relief is impossible without them or if their absence would impair their interest or expose existing parties to inconsistent obligations.
Indispensable party analysis
When a required party cannot be joined without destroying jurisdiction, Rule 19(b) asks whether in equity and good conscience the case should proceed or be dismissed.
Rule 24 intervention
A nonparty may intervene as of right when it has an interest that may be impaired and is inadequately represented, or permissively where its claim shares a common question.
Interpleader
A stakeholder facing multiple claims to a single fund may deposit it and force the claimants to litigate among themselves, available under Rule 22 or the more generous statutory version.
Rule 23(a) prerequisites
Every class requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, and courts also imply an ascertainable class definition and a class member representative.
Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes
Commonality demands a common contention capable of classwide resolution; a nationwide discretionary pay and promotion policy did not supply the necessary glue among the claims.
Rule 23(b)(1) class
Certification is available where separate suits would risk inconsistent standards for the opposing party or would practically impair the interests of absent members, as with a limited fund.
Rule 23(b)(2) class
Certification for injunctive or declaratory relief where the party opposing the class acted on grounds applying generally to the class, so a single indivisible remedy fits everyone.
Rule 23(b)(3) class
The damages class, requiring that common questions predominate over individual ones and that a class action be superior to other available methods of adjudication.
Predominance and superiority
The twin Rule 23(b)(3) findings that screen damages classes, examining whether individual issues such as reliance or damages would overwhelm the shared proof.
Opt-out right
Members of a damages class must receive the best notice practicable and the ability to exclude themselves, a due process protection absent from mandatory class categories.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
Absent plaintiff class members may be bound without minimum contacts if they receive notice, an opportunity to opt out, and adequate representation.
Class Action Fairness Act
Federal jurisdiction over most large interstate classes based on minimal diversity and an aggregated amount exceeding five million dollars, with expanded removal rights for defendants.
Rule 26(b)(1) scope
Discovery reaches nonprivileged matter relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, weighing importance, amounts, access, burden, and benefit.
Proportionality
The 2015 amendment moved this limit into the definition of discoverable material, making burden and benefit part of the scope rather than merely a ground for a protective order.
Work product doctrine
Rule 26(b)(3) protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, discoverable only on a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain the equivalent without undue hardship.
Hickman v. Taylor
The 1947 decision creating work product protection and giving near absolute protection to an attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories.
Rule 37 sanctions
Remedies for discovery abuse ranging from fee shifting to preclusion of evidence, adverse inference instructions, and dismissal or default for willful violations of court orders.