What is the difference between permissive joinder and intervention

Significantly, some decided cases virtually disregarded the language of this provision. The purpose of Rule 24 b is to facilitate the disposal in one action of claims involving common questions of law or fact, thus avoiding both court congestion and undue delay and expense to all parties.

On the other hand, one could argue that intervention may unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the right of the original parties. Rule 24 a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for intervention as of right when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene or when the applicant claims an interest in the subject matter of the action which may be affected.

Skip to content Home » Users' questions » What is permissive intervention? Users' questions. Page Contents 1 What is permissive intervention? How can I get my signature notarized online? Post by Brucewaynegretzky » Tue Dec 08, am.

Post by Objection » Wed Dec 09, am. Post by ChattelCat » Wed Dec 09, am. Post by sweetdreams21 » Wed Dec 09, pm. Post by dantimreynolds » Wed Dec 09, pm.

Post by Brucewaynegretzky » Wed Dec 09, pm. Post by kimber » Thu Dec 10, am. Well then ten days later Norman sues asking for the funds. The bank is at risk of being subject to inconsistent obligations. The wisest course would be to bring both Alfred and Norman before the same court in one suit, the judgment that would enter would be binding as to both of them.

Note: Where there is joint and several liability among joint tortfeasors you can sue anyone of them for the full amount , joint tortfeasors are not required parties Temple v. Synthes Corp. Your torts professor will teach you more about joint and several liability. Can that party be joined? Assume no AIC problems. No, there is an SMJ problem in that adding him would destroy diversity. Rule There may also be cases where there is no PJ over the party to be joined, though this is one place where the bulge rule of FRCP 4 k 1 b comes in handy.

If that party cannot be joined, what should you do? In the old days: you would just dismiss the action for want of an indispensable party. This was done through FRCP 12 b 7 : Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required.

But a party may assert the following defenses by motion. So in the old days, if there were a hundred people who owned Blackacre, and you could only join 99 of them when apportioning, you threw out the whole case. As litigation became increasingly complex i. This is the realist story, the formalist story has to do with a move away from thinking of the lack of FRCP 19 required parties as a deficit in SMJ and thus power of the court, and into something else.

If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:.

For example, if you have people entitled to a settlement and one is truly unavaivable, a trial court judge COULD divide the settlement and hold one share in escrow for the missing claimant. But judge could still just dismiss if he preferred. This is very fact intensive analysis. A good example comes from the recent Proposition 8 litigation where none of the parties the challengers, California wanted to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8, so it fell to an outside party — the Proposition 8 sponsors — to defend the constitutionality of the statute, and they entered the fray through intervention.

Note: Just to make matters more complicated, the fact that you can intervene in the district court does not mean you can necessarily take an appeal when the initial parties do not want to. This was one of the key issues in the Proposition 8 case in the Supreme Court. Intervention as of Right. When you meet the requirements, you have a right to intervene. The Rule says you can have intervention as of right when a a federal statute says so; Or b you can have intervention as of right when the lawsuit is about an interest or property, and the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the intervenor's ability to protect himself, and existing parties do not adequately represent that interest 3 conjunctive requirements.

The basic idea is that this litigant needs to bring to the table something that is overlooked or ignored if only existing litigants were allowed in. This is supposed to be a minimal bar. Permissive Intervention. The Rule says permissive intervention when 1 the statute gives you a conditional right to intervene, or 2 intervenor's claim or defense has a common question of law or fact with the main action.

Permissive intervention is always discretionary. Among the reasons it will be denied is that it causes undue delay or prejudice, for example it would require reopening discovery. The court can also allow intervention for only limited purposes rather than general purpose intervention. You cannot intervene if it would destroy SMJ, for example by destroying diversity.