Also known as: joinder of parties · parties joinder · joinder
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural mechanism by which additional parties are added to a pending action or proceeding when their presence is necessary for just adjudication or when claims expose a party to multiple liabilities.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pearl Porter and 250 other investors each lost money in a single fraudulent scheme run by Phoenix Technologies. Pearl files a proposed class action in federal court. The court finds that joining all 250 investors individually would be impracticable and therefore certifies the class under the numerosity requirement.
Precision Tools sues Platinum Partners in federal court on a federal antitrust claim. Precision then adds a state-law contract claim against Pavel Petrov, a new defendant whose conduct is factually intertwined with the original dispute. The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the new claim and party because the claims form part of the same case or controversy.
Paige Porter transfers real property to Prosperity Investments without first obtaining her husband Peter Park's written consent. After Paige's death the probate court excludes the transferred property from her augmented estate because Peter had joined the transfer in writing before it occurred.
Phoebe Park, domiciled in State A, sues a defendant domiciled in State B over the transfer of land located in State C. The court applies State A's procedural rules on joinder of parties even while using State C's substantive property law to decide ownership questions.
Pamela Phillips holds insurance proceeds claimed by both Precision Tools and Platinum Partners. Pamela files an interpleader action naming both claimants as defendants. The court permits the joinder even though the claimants' theories of recovery are adverse and independent.
Pavel Petrov, a citizen of a foreign country, is joined as a defendant in a diversity action brought by Phoenix Technologies against a U.S. resident. The court disregards Pavel's joinder when determining proper venue and proceeds in the district where the U.S. defendant resides.
A person subject to service of process must be joined if complete relief cannot be accorded without that person or if the person claims an interest that may be impaired. The court must also consider whether the person's absence would subject existing parties to multiple or inconsistent obligations.
Supplemental jurisdiction extends to claims involving joinder or intervention of additional parties when those claims form part of the same case or controversy. In diversity-only actions, however, the statute bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 if doing so would destroy complete diversity.
…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…
…it specifically stated that it was “on the merits”), and did not pertain to the excepted subjects of jurisdiction, venue, or joinder
…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 Non
…The parties stipulated that there were in the State of Iowa "numerous people in the same situation as plaintiff," that joinder
…being joined with her husband, does not exist. The relation in which the divorce a mensa et thoro places the parties opposes a
A defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district. The joinder of such a defendant is disregarded when determining where the action may be brought with respect to other defendants.
Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead. Joinder remains proper even if the claims lack a common origin or are adverse and independent.
A class may be certified only if it is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. This requirement recognizes that traditional party joinder becomes unworkable when the number of potential parties grows too large.