Also known as: joinder of party · party joinder
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural device that permits multiple plaintiffs or defendants to participate in a single civil action. The device applies when the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and present at least one common question of law or fact.
River Ocean, a State A corporation, purchased coastal property in State B from Josiah. Jeremy, a State B resident, later claimed a prescriptive easement based on long use. When River Ocean sued in State A court to quiet title, the court applied State A procedural rules to decide whether additional parties claiming interests in the land must be joined.
Several fuel purchasers from different states sued Exxon Mobil in federal court for overcharges. Each plaintiff’s claim was below the jurisdictional amount, but the claims shared common questions about pricing practices. The court permitted joinder because the purchasers’ claims arose from the same course of conduct.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
After Ashe was acquitted of robbing one poker player, the state tried him for robbing a second player at the same table. Ashe moved to bar the second prosecution. The court examined whether the first acquittal necessarily decided an issue common to both incidents, treating the separate charges as arising from a single occurrence for preclusion purposes.
Shore sued Parklane Hosiery for misleading proxy statements. A prior SEC action had already found the statements false. Shore sought to use that finding offensively. The court considered whether the earlier litigation had joined all interested shareholders so that the judgment could bind the corporation in the later private suit.
Blonder-Tongue sued University of Illinois Foundation for patent infringement. The foundation had previously lost a suit against another alleged infringer on the ground that the patent was invalid. The court examined whether the earlier judgment bound the patentee because all potential licensees had a sufficient opportunity to join the first action.
Plaintiffs may join when their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share a common question of law or fact. Defendants may be joined on the same conditions. The rule promotes efficiency while the court retains power to sever for fairness.
Joinder of claims under Rule 18 allows a single plaintiff to assert any claims against an opposing party without a transactional link. Joinder of parties under Rule 20 imposes the additional requirements of a common transaction and a shared question of law or fact.
A court first determines whether the absent party is required because complete relief cannot be granted or the party’s interest may be impaired. If joinder is infeasible, the court weighs prejudice, adequacy of the judgment, and other factors before deciding whether to dismiss.
A court applies its own procedural rules, including those governing joinder of parties, even when the land lies in another state. Substantive issues such as capacity to transfer are decided under the law selected by choice-of-law rules.
…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…