Also known as: joinder law · joinder
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A collection of procedural and substantive rules that determine when additional parties or claims may or must be included in a single proceeding. These rules promote judicial efficiency, avoid inconsistent outcomes, and protect the interests of absent persons whose rights may be affected. In community property jurisdictions the same label also identifies statutes that require both spouses to execute documents affecting real property held by the community.
Jada Jones and 450 other purchasers of a defective medical device filed a proposed class action against the manufacturer in federal court. Because locating and serving every buyer would be logistically impossible, the court certified the class under the numerosity requirement and allowed the suit to proceed without joining each individual plaintiff.
James Johnson sued a federal agency in district court for violation of a federal statute and added a related state-law tort claim against the same defendant. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because it arose from the same set of facts that supported the federal claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jose Jimenez transferred community real property to a third party. His wife had signed a written consent to the transfer before the deed was executed. The probate court therefore excluded the property from the augmented estate when calculating the surviving spouse's elective share.
Justin Jarvis, domiciled in State A, conveyed land located in State B. When litigation arose over the conveyance, the State A court applied its own procedural rules governing joinder of parties even though it looked to State B law on the substantive validity of the deed.
Jackson Mutual held insurance proceeds claimed by both Jamal Jefferson and Jeffrey Jha after a fatal accident. The insurer filed an interpleader action naming both claimants as defendants, thereby protecting itself from the risk of paying the same funds twice.
Jennings Forge, a foreign corporation with no U.S. residence, was joined as a defendant in a contract action brought in the District of State A. The court ignored Jennings Forge's presence when determining proper venue for the remaining domestic defendants.
Joinder is impracticable when the class is so numerous that individual joinder would be logistically or financially burdensome. Courts consider factors such as the number of potential plaintiffs, geographic dispersion, and the small size of individual claims. Certification under Rule 23(a)(1) then allows the case to proceed without naming every member.
Yes. When a district court has original jurisdiction, section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that form part of the same case or controversy, including claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. Limitations in subsection (b) may still apply in diversity cases.
Joinder laws require both spouses to sign documents that affect community real property. If only one spouse signs, the non-signing spouse may have a limited remedy against the signing spouse or the third party seeking to enforce the document.
Under section 1391(c)(3), a defendant who does not reside in the United States may be sued in any judicial district. The presence of that defendant is disregarded when determining proper venue for the remaining parties.
…The parties stipulated that there were in the State of Iowa "numerous people in the same situation as plaintiff," that joinder of those persons was impracticable, that appellant's claims were representative of the class, and that she would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. See Rule 23 (a).…