UGA Law - Civil Procedure I - Fall 2005 - Shipley

Start Studying!

Terms

undefined, object

copy deck

Rule 4(a): summons signed by clerk and sealed, directed to defendant, including time defendant must appear.
Rule 4(d): waiver of service â€“ a defendant who waives service does not thereby waive objections to venue or jurisdiction.
i) If defendant does not waive, must pay cost of service.
ii) If defendant does waive, gives 60 days to respond.
Rule 4(c)(2): personal service may be made by any person who is over 18 yrs of age and not a party
Rule 4(h): service to corporations and out of US defendant
Rule 8(a): a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain:
i) A short, plain statement of the grounds upon which the courts jurisdiction depends.
ii) A short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
iii) A demand for judgment for the relief that the pleader seeks.
Rule 11(a): every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record, or by the party itself.
Rule 11(b): by presenting to the court a pleading, an attorney is certifying that to the best of his knowledge⬦
i) It is not being presented for any improper purposes (harassment, needless delay)
ii) The claims or defenses contained therein are warranted by law (non-frivolous)
iii) The allegations have evidentiary support, or are likely to have evidentiary support upon further investigation and discovery
iv) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
Rule 11(c): sanctions â€“ if Rule 11b is violated, the court may impose appropriate sanctions.
Rule 12: pre-answer motions: defenses and objections
i) Rule 12(a) â€“ when presentedâ€¦
(1) Rule 12(a)(1)(a) - defendant shall serve answer within 20 days after being served with summons and complaint. (except under Rule 4d)
ii) Rule 12(b) â€“ how presented â€“ the following defenses may be made by motion:
(1) Rule 12(b)(1) â€“ lack of SMJ
(2) Rule 12(b)(2) â€“ lack of PJ
(a) Other Rule 12 objections may be made at the same time
(b) Must be done immediately, or lost.
(c) At common law, may be done by special appearance (so that physical presence does not give PJ)
(i) Cannot address merits; if done, court may find objection to PJ waived
(d) At common law, one may wait to make a collateral attack later
(i) Not allowed to do so if already raised PJ in original trial
(ii) May appeal trial decision in the same jurisdiction to reclaim lack of PJ
(3) Rule 12(b)(3) â€“ improper venue
(4) Rule 12(b)(4) â€“ insufficiency of process
(5) Rule 12(b)(5) â€“ insufficiency of service of process
(6) Rule 12(b)(6) â€“ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
(7) Rule 12(b)(7) â€“ failure to join a party under Rule 19
Rule 19: joinder of parties needed for just adjudication
Rule 50(a) Rule 50(b): (a) directed verdict,

(b) JNOV
Rule 41: Rule 41(a) â€“ Voluntary Dismissal

Rule 41(b) â€“ Involuntary Dismissal
Personal Jurisdiction Minimum Contacts I. International Shoe: International Shoe (minimum contacts) â€“ Shoe company with salesman in Washington is subject to Washingtonâ€™s jurisdiction when the state tried to collect unemployment taxes, because the company had â€œminimum contactsâ€ with the state.

(1) A corporation that does business within a certain state enjoys the benefits and protections of that stateâ€™s laws.

(2) The nature and extent of a corporationâ€™s contacts must be evaluated under traditional concepts of fairness and justice to determine whether it would be reasonable to require a corp. to defend the claim in that state.

(3) Intâ€™l Shoe had continuous and systematic sales activities within the state. Together with the volume of sales in Washington and the fact that the claim arose from those contacts allowed the court to grant Washington jurisdiction over Intâ€™l Shoe.

** (4) Look at quality and nature of contacts; must not be casual or isolated.
Personal Jurisdiction Minimum Contacts II. McGee (related claim): McGee (related claim) â€“ the beneficiary of a life insurance policy brought suit in California when the Texas insurance company refused to pay. (Most Expansive interpretation of Intâ€™l Shoe)

(1) A state can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant whose contacts with that state consist solely of a single act or a contract, provided that that act is what gave rise to the claim, and was purposefully undertaken.
Personal Jurisdiction Minimum Contacts III. Hanson v Denckla (no related claim): Hanson v Denckla (no related claim) â€“ Various claimants to a Delaware trust filed suit against the trustee in Florida, claiming that the trust was invalid under Florida law (narrowest reading of Intâ€™l Shoe).

(1) A state may not exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant with only sporadic and inadvertent contacts with the state, when those contacts do not give rise to the claim for which jurisdiction is being sought.

(2) The fact that the trustees client, the defendant, moved to Florida does not that defendant purposely availed itself to the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Personal Jurisdiction Minimum Contacts IV. Shaffer (in rem): Shaffer (in rem) â€“ Plaintiff brought a shareholderâ€™s derivative suit against several officers and directors of Greyhound, a Delaware corp., gaining in rem jurisdiction by attaching their stocks in Greyhound.

(1) All assertions of state-court jurisdiction, INCLUDING IN REM, must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in Intâ€™l Shoe.

(2) The officersâ€™ and directorsâ€™ holdings in Greyhound do not provide contacts with Delaware sufficient to support Delaware jurisdiction.
Personal Jurisdiction Specific Jurisdiction: Defendant is subject only to claims arising out of his minimum contacts. (related)
Personal Jurisdiction Specific Jurisdiction I. World-wide VW: World-wide VW â€“ A New York family passing through Oklahoma was in a car accident, and tried to bring suit there against the dealer who sold them the car in New York.

(1) In order to be subject to a stateâ€™s jurisdiction, a defendant must have purposefully availed himself to the laws of that state.

(2) Putting a product into the stream of commerce, alone, is not sufficient for jurisdiction. (White)
(a) Important test â€“ foreseeability that defendant might be haled into court in that state. (as opposed to merely foreseeing the product going to that state)
(b) Brennanâ€™s Dissent â€“ purposeful contacts not necessary, stream of commerce is sufficient.
Personal Jurisdiction Specific Jurisdiction II. Asahi: Asahi â€“ victim of motorcycle accident sued tire tube maker in CA. Taiwanese Tube maker cross-claimed against Jap. Manufacturer of tire tube valve. Accident victim settles case, leaving Jap. vs Taiwan.

(1) Stream of commerce is not enough for minimum contacts, BUT if minimum contacts are met, the requirement of substantial notions of justice and fair play must also be satisfied.

(a) This court was divided on minimum contacts, but agreed that fair play standard was not satisfied.
(i) Factors for fair play include: interest of forum state in providing redress to its citizens
(ii) Interest of plaintiff in convenient forum
(iii) Interest of states in enforcing substantive law or policy
(iv) Inconvenience to defendant

(b) Stream of commerce sufficient for minimum contacts???
(i) Oâ€™Connor says NO; also look to see if ï„ purposefully availed himself to forum state; did he try to cultivate market
(ii) Brennan says YES
Personal Jurisdiction Specific Jurisdiction III. Burger King: Burger King - defendant contracted with Burger King, a Florida corp., to operate a franchise in Michigan, then defaulted on payments, so BK filed suit in Florida

(1) Once minimum contacts have been established and defendant has purposefully availed activities to forum state, defendant has burden to prove that forum is unfair.

(2) Brennan finally gets his way â€“ court says minimum contacts are met bc defendant voluntarily entered into a contract with a Florida corp. in FL.
(a) Dissent â€“ minimum contacts not met bc never went to Florida, sold no products there, maintained no offices there.

(3) Had defendant filed a declaratory judgment in MI before BKâ€™s suit, he wouldnâ€™t have this problem bc BK had sufficient contacts with MI.
Personal Jurisdiction Specific Jurisdiction IV. Pavlovich: Pavlovich â€“ CA court exercised PJ over defendant based on posting on website, but PJ deemed improper.

(1) defendantâ€™s sole contact with the state was that his internet posting could be accessed by CA residents.

(2) Internet business transactions can lead to PJ in other states, however passive internet sites (Pavlovich) that do little more than make info. Available is not grounds for PJ.

(3) Creating a website is much like putting a product into the stream of commerce. Without more, it is not an act of purposeful availment.
Personal Jurisdiction General Jurisdiction: defendantâ€™s actions are so substantial that he would expect to be subject to suit there on any claim and would suffer no inconvenience from defending there. (even in unrelated claim)
Personal Jurisdiction General Jurisdiction i. Coastal Video: Coastal Video - Plaintiff is a VA corp. that produces employee handbooks. Defendant a Delaware corp. with PPB in CA publishes patient education safety materials. There was some question as to Pâ€™s use of materials copyrighted by D, so P files declaratory suit that their product does not infringe. Court determines that Dâ€™s distribution of product in VA is sufficient for general jurisdiction.

(1) Unrelated claim, but general jurisdiction allows PJ in VA.

(2) Dâ€™s website allows for product ordering (active website)

(3) NOTE â€“ general jurisdiction exists despite not having any offices or employees in VA (internet site was extensive enough).

(4) LLBEAN â€“ similar to Coastal, and court says 6% of total sales in forum state was sufficient for general jurisdiction.
Personal Jurisdiction General Jurisdiction ii. Burnham: Burnham â€“ While visiting CA for business and vacation, D was served with process for divorce proceeding. He claims PJ in CA violates due process.

(1) Jurisdiction based on physical presence comports with due process regardless of Dâ€™s contacts with the forum state.

(2) Transient Jurisdiction â€“ (tag jurisdiction) jurisdiction over non-resident based on service of process while D was in forum state.

(3) Brennan â€“ disagrees with traditional service of process rules, and thinks court should have examined contacts (and he thought there were minimum contacts).
Personal Jurisdiction Jurisdiction by Consent (Forum selection Clauses): Reasonable forum selection clauses are effective in imposing jurisdiction.
Personal Jurisdiction Jurisdiction by Consent (Forum selection Clauses) Carnival Cruise Lines: Carnival Cruise Lines â€“ P fell on cruise ship and filed suit in WA. Cruise line argued that forum selection clause on the ticket limits jurisdiction to FL. Court agrees with cruise line.
Personal Jurisdiction Notice: Notice by publication fails to comply with due process when the names and addresses of the parties are known.
Personal Jurisdiction Notice Mullane: Mullane - P petitions for judicial settlement of trust, and provided notice to beneficiaries by publication. Court says this violates due process.
(a) Not all parties must be actually notified (some can get lost in mail), bc all parties have the same interest.
(b) Such notice by pub. In this case was not reasonably calculated to provide notice to the parties whose names and addresses were known.
(c) Publication is sufficient where addresses were unknown.
Personal Jurisdiction Long-Arm Statutes: Statutory limitations that States place on their courtsâ€™ jurisdiction over out-of-state Ds. (limits the power granted by Constitution and interpreted by Shoe).
Personal Jurisdiction Long-Arm Statutes Gibbons v. Brown: Gibbons v Brown â€“ Passenger v Passenger lawsuit where personal jurisdiction was asserted based upon non-resident D having filed a lawsuit in the state two years prior against a non-party driver.

(1) Jurisdiction in this case was not proper. (too isolated and not substantial)
(a) Court relied upon the length of time between the two actions and the fact that a nonparty to the instant action was named as a D in the prior action.
(b) Under FL long-arm statute a D must be â€œengaged in substantial and non isolated activityâ€ within the state.
Personal Jurisdiction Venue: While personal jurisdiction places litigation in a specific state, venue statutes place litigation within a federal judicial district in that state.
Personal Jurisdiction Venue 28 USC § 1391(a) Governs Venue in Diversity Cases: Venue will lie inâ€¦
(1) a judicial district where any D resides if all Dâ€™s reside in the same state
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated
(3) a judicial district in which any D is subject to PJ at the time action is commenced if there is no district where the action may otherwise be brought.
Personal Jurisdiction Venue 28 USC § 1391(b) Governs Venue in all other cases (Jurisdiction not founded solely on Diversity): Venue will lie in⬦
(1) same as 1391a
(2) same as 1391a
(3) a judicial district in which any D may be found, if there is no other district in which action may be brought.
Personal Jurisdiction Venue 28 USC § 1391(c) Residence of Corporation: A corporation shall be deemed to reside in any district in which it is subject to PJ at the time the action is commenced
Personal Jurisdiction Venue 28 USC § 1391(c) Venue for Aliens: An alien may be sued in any district.
Personal Jurisdiction Venue Dee-K Enterprises: Dee-K Enterprises â€“ Foreign manufacturers of rubber thread claim lack of jurisdiction and improper venue when being sued in fed. Dist. Ct. for price fixing.
(a) General federal venue statutes subjecting alien corporations to suit in any judicial district overrides other federal statutes that may contain specific venue provisions. (Â§1391)
(b) Anti-trust statute says foreign Dâ€™s can be sued anywhere they can be found or do business.
(c) Federal statute (1391) overrules this anti-trust statute and allows venue for aliens in any district.
Transfer and Forum Non Conveniens: i) There will be circumstances in which a court has the power to hear a case but, for reasons of justice or efficiency, should not do so.

28 USC 1404, 1406, 1631
Transfer and Forum Non Conveniens Piper Aircraft (case details): Piper Aircraft â€“ The Scottish heirs of plane crash victims in Scotland try to sue for wrongful death in a US court bc US courts recognize wrongful death as a cause of action and are known generally to be more favorable to Pâ€™s than the courts in Scotland.
(a) The fact of substantive law being less favorable to Pâ€™s in an alternative forum should not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
(b) Substantial weight may be given to the disadvantaging law of an alternative forum if the remedy would be so clearly inadequate that dismissal would not be in the interest of justice.
(c) Procedural Path â€“ case initially brought in CA state court. Removed to Fed. Court. Transferred to Penn. (Piper used Â§1404a, Hartzell used Â§1631). Dismissed for forum non conveniens.
Transfer and Forum Non Conveniens Piper Aircraft (Determining Forum Non Conviens factors): Determining Forum Non Conveniens
(i) Private interest factors
1. Relative ease of access to proof
2. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of the unwilling witnesses
3. The cost of attaining attendance of willing witnesses
4. Possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action
5. All other practical problems that make a trial case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive

(ii) Public interest factors
1. Administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion
2. Local interest in having local controversies decided at home
3. The interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action
4. The avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law
5. The unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum.
Rule 50(a) Rule 50(b): (a) directed verdict,
(b) JNOV
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Cases Federal Courts Can Hear: The Federal courts are authorized to hear cases⬦(Article III)
i) between states,
ii) between citizens of different states,
iii) between citizens and aliens,
iv) cases involving foreign ministers and consuls,
v) admiralty and maritime cases,
vi) cases arising under the federal Constitution and federal law
vii) bankruptcy cases
viii) antitrusts
ix) copyrights
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution 28 USC § 1331: grants federal district courts jurisdiction over cases â€œarising underâ€ the Constitution, statutes, or treaties of the federal government.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution Questions to determine whether a case satisfies the â€œFederal Questionâ€ requirement for subject matter jurisdiction:: (1) Is there a federal question at all?

(2) Does the federal issue â€œgive rise toâ€ the plaintiffâ€™s claim? (as opposed to being a defense)

(3) Is the federal issue sufficiently important to â€œfederalizeâ€ the case?
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley: Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley â€“ Injured RR customers sought to enforce the use of their free passes in the wrong court.

(1) Pâ€™s federal question must appear in the allegations of the complaint

(2) Anticipated defenses involving federal law are inadequate for federal jurisdiction.

(3) The court can assert or dismiss on SMJ without motion of the parties.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution 28 USC § 1331(c)(1): says that corporations are citizens of their place of incorporation and principal place of business
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution I. Redner v. Sanders: Redner v. Sanders - P claims complete diversity, but was a US citizen residing in France. Dâ€™s from NY. Claim states that P is a resident of a foreign state, invokes 1332(a)(2) but court rejects claim â€“ P is not a citizen of a foreign state.

(1) Residence is not synonymous with citizenship.

(2) P Eventually shifts to demonstrate diversity under Â§1332(a)(1) by establishing domicile in CA, but fails to produce sufficient evidence.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution II. Saadeh v. Farouki: Saadeh v. Farouki - P, a Greek citizen, sues D, a Jordanian residing in Maryland, on a defaulted loan in fed. Ct.

(1) There is no fed. Diversity jurisdiction over an action between an alien and another alien who has achieved permanent resident immigration status.

(2) Citizenship at the time suit was filed is the determining time.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution Supplemental Jurisdiction: Stretches federal jurisdiction to cover parts of cases that, if brought independently, would not have fit within the district courtsâ€™ subject matter jurisdiction.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution Supplemental Jurisdiction 28 USC § 1367: In cases where fed ct has original jurisdiction the ct shall have supp jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action that they form part of the same case or controversy (including joinder or intervention of additional parties).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution Supplemental Jurisdiction 28 USC § 1367(b): when original jurisdiction is based strictly on diversity the fed ct shall not have supp jurisdiction over claims made under rules 14 (third party claims), 19 (Compulsory Joinder), 20 (Permissive Joinder), and 24 (intervention) if they destroy independent grounds of diversity.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution Supplemental Jurisdiction 28 USC § 1367(c): the district ct can decline to exercise supp jurisdiction if:

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law

(2) the state claim predominates over the fed claim

(3) the district ct has dismissed all fed claims

(4) any other compelling reason the ct. finds
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution Supplemental Jurisdiction 28 USC § 1367(d): Period of limitation â€“ 30 days
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Arising Under Federal law or the Constitution Supplemental Jurisdiction Jin v. Ministry of State Security: Jin v. Ministry of State Security â€“ P had a RICO action (fed statute), so Ct. had SMJ over Pâ€™s defamation claim despite defamation being a state law.

(1) Two part test for Supp jurisdiction
(a) Does the Pâ€™s claim share a common nucleus of operative facts with the other claims?
(b) Do the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support the exercise of supp. jurisdiction?
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal: The Dâ€™s power to second-guess plaintiffs who choose a state court.

28 USC Â§ 1441
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal 28 USC § 1441(a): any civil action brought in state ct. which the district courts have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the Dâ€™s to the district court.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal 28 USC § 1441(b): any action in which the district courts have original jurisdiction, that is founded on a claim arising under the constitution or fed. Laws, shall be removable regardless of citizenship or residence of parties.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal 28 USC § 1441(c): if any claim in the suit can be removed, joined claims that otherwise could not be removed may be removed with the original claim.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal 28 USC § 1441(d): any action against a foreign state can be removed to fed. Ct. by the foreign state.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal 28 USC § 1441(e)(6): nothing in this subsection shall restrict the authority of the district ct. to transfer or dismiss an action on the ground of inconvenient forum.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal 28 USC § 1441(f): if state ct. did not have jurisdiction, and claim is removed to fed. Ct. the fed. Ct. is not precluded from hearing the case.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal Removal and Venue: A case removed under § 1441 is no longer subject to § 1391 venue rules.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Removal I. Catepillar: Pâ€™s state case was improperly removed to fed ct., bc there was not complete diversity. Diversity did exist by the time of judgment.

(1) District courts error in failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing judgment if fed. Jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered.

(2) Judicial economy is a factor considered in determining whether to retry a case that has already been decided (finality, efficiency, economy).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder Joinder of Claims Rule 18: authorize parties, once they are properly joined in a law suit, to assert any additional claims against opposing parties.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder Joinder of Claims Rule 42(b): permits the judge to sever claims for trial convenience.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder Joinder of Claims Rule 13: permits Dâ€™s to assert counterclaims against P.

1. Compulsory counterclaim â€“ arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the present claim. (Rule 13a)

2. Permissive counterclaim â€“ does not arise out of the present claim. (Rule 13b)

3. Cross-Claim â€“ arising out of same transaction or occurrence (Rule 13g)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder Joinder of Claims I. Plant v. Blazer Financial Services: Plant v. Blazer Financial Services - P borrowed $2520 from D, made no payments for 8 months, then sued D under Truth In Lending Act (federal). D counterclaims on the loan for the unpaid balance (State).
(a) Is an action on an underlying debt in default a compulsory counterclaim?
(i) Yes. A compulsory counterclaim that MUST be asserted in a suit by the debtor on a TILA cause of action.
1. Compulsory counterclaim â€“ arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the present claim. (Rule 13a)
2. Permissive counterclaim â€“ does not arise out of the present claim. (Rule 13b)
3. Cross-Claim â€“ arising out of same transaction or occurrence (Rule 13g)
4. Ancillary Jurisdiction â€“ Fed. Ct. acquires jurisdiction over the entire case, even though some of the matters would not be subject to federal jurisdiction.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims Rule 20(a): May join Pâ€™s or Dâ€™s if:

(i) they assert any right to relief rising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and

(ii) if any question of law or fact is in common with the original claim.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims Rule 20(b) and 42(b): vest in the district court the discretion to separate trials or make such other orders as will prevent delay or prejudice.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims Mosley v. General Motors Corp.: P and 9 others, joined together to bring suit against GM (D) for discrimination against blacks and women.

(i) The difficulties in ultimately adjudicating damages to various ïâ€™s in a class are not so overwhelming as to require severance of the Pâ€™s causes of actions.

(ii) Permissive Joinder is not always permitted:
1. Must satisfy requirements of Rule 20 (above).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims Rule 14 (Third Party Defendants): a D may assert a claim against anyone not a party to the original action, if that third partyâ€™s liability is in some way dependent upon the outcome of the original action. (a third party may be impleaded only when the original D is trying to pass all or part of the liability onto that third party).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims Price v. CTB, Inc.: P hires D to build chicken house. Chicken house is faulty. P sues D for bad coop. D joins third party D for providing faulty nails (indemnified). ITW, 3rd party D, argues that they are improperly impleaded under Rule 14.

(i) Court holds that ITW was properly impleaded under Rule 14.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims Third Party Defendants - Time to implead: Third party must be impleaded within 10 days
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims Third Party Defendants - Requirements to implead: Impleading a third party does not affect PJ, but court must still have distinct SMJ over impleader claim â€“ if diverse, must be over $75k.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims Third Party Defendants - Venue: (e) Third party disregarded to determine if venue is proper.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims Rule 13(h): D may bring in an additional party on a counterclaim, as long as the claim against the added party and the original plaintiff meet Rule 20(a)

Start Studying!

Deck Info

Number of cards 75