Also known as: joinder of claims · joinder of parties · joinder
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural mechanism that permits or requires multiple claims or parties to be litigated together in a single action. The mechanism promotes efficiency by consolidating related disputes while respecting limits on jurisdiction, venue, and fairness to participants.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jasmine Jordan and 250 other investors filed a securities fraud suit against Jarvis Aviation alleging identical misrepresentations in the company's public filings. The plaintiffs moved for class certification. The court examined whether the sheer number of potential claimants made bringing every investor into the case as an individual party impractical.
Julia Jensen sued Jackson Mutual in federal court under a federal statute for breach of an insurance policy. She later sought to add a state-law tort claim against the same insurer arising from the same denial of coverage. The court assessed whether the new claim formed part of the same constitutional case or controversy as the original federal claim.
Jeffrey Jha transferred real estate to a trust without obtaining his wife's signature. After his death, the surviving spouse challenged the transfer's exclusion from the augmented estate. The probate court evaluated whether the absence of written joinder or consent rendered the transfer includible in the estate calculation.
Jamal Jefferson, domiciled in State A, conveyed land located in State B to Jessica Jacobs. A dispute arose over the validity of the deed. The forum court applied its own procedural rules to questions of party joinder while looking to State B law for the substantive validity of the transfer.
Jefferson Trust held insurance proceeds claimed by both Jada Jones and Jung BioTech after a disputed beneficiary designation. The trustee filed an interpleader action naming both claimants as defendants. The court considered whether the competing claims exposed the trustee to multiple liability sufficient to justify forcing the claimants to litigate their rights in one proceeding.
A foreign corporation with no U.S. residence was joined as a defendant in a contract action also naming a domestic corporation. The plaintiff filed in a district where venue was proper as to the domestic defendant. The court disregarded the foreign defendant's joinder when determining whether venue was proper for the entire action.
Joinder that would destroy diversity or federal-question jurisdiction may be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) after removal or prevented at the outset under Rule 19. Courts weigh whether the party is required and whether equity favors proceeding without that party.
Supporting sources
Rule 22 allows a stakeholder facing multiple liability to force adverse claimants into one action even when their claims lack a common origin. Rule 20 requires a common question of law or fact and an arising-out-of-the-same-transaction test for permissive joinder of defendants.
…the permissible scope of the doctrine in relation to the liberal provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for joinder of parties and claims. Kroger commenced as a suit between a citizen of Iowa and a Nebraska corporation. When the Nebraska defendant impleaded an Iowa corporation as a third-party defendant under…
…There is no support for the dissent's novel contention, ibid. , that Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing joinder of indispensable
…the problems posed by the inability to implead potential third-party defendants clearly supported holding the trial in Scotland. Joinder of the pilot’s estate, Air Navigation, and McDonald is crucial to the presentation of petitioners’ defense. If Piper and Hartzell can show that the accident was caused not by a design…
…the federal courts with countless similar suits has been mitigated by the ready availability of the devices of class actions and joinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted subsequent to the decision in Frothingham . Whatever the merits of the current debate over Frothingham , its very existence suggests…
…Mutuality of Estoppel: Limits of the Bernhard Doctrine, 9 Stan. L. Rev. 281 (1957); Semmel, Collateral Estoppel, Mutuality and Joinder of Parties, 68 Colum. L. Rev. 1457 (1968); Note, The Impacts of Defensive and Offensive Assertion of Collateral Estoppel by a Nonparty, 35 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1010 (1967). Professor Currie later…
Supporting sources
An assignment of part of a right is operative, yet the obligor who has not agreed to separate performance may insist on joinder of all persons entitled to performance before any suit proceeds. Without joinder or a showing that it is infeasible and equity permits proceeding alone, the assignee cannot maintain an independent action.
Supporting sources
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), the presence of a defendant not resident in the United States is ignored when determining proper venue as to other defendants. The action may proceed in any district where venue is proper for the remaining parties.
Supporting sources
No. Modern conspiracy rules permit joint prosecution when defendants are charged in a single count alleging one agreement or related aspects of one scheme. Each defendant's guilt remains an independent merits question.
Supporting sources