Civil Procedure II

21 November

• The Kroger Cases
  • Kroger v. Omaha Public Power District
    So the employer doesn't get sued here because workers' comp gives immunity. This is why you don't see a lot of tort cases with people suing their employers for injuries.

    How does the power company implead Owen equipment? Well maybe they rented an unsafe crane in some way.

    14(a)(3) allows Kroger to assert claims against Owen Equipment once they get impleaded.

    Then Owen waits till the statute of limitations runs before it announces it's from Iowa, thereby destroying jurisdiction.

  • Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
    No supplemental ("ancillary," the court says) jurisdiction when there's not complete diversity. But this was based on § 1332, not the constitution. This gets codified in § 1367(b): "over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14."

    So Kroger's best strategy was not to make a claim against Owen, get a judgment against the power company (and therefore also Owen because they're impleaded). Then she can bring her claim against Owen elsewhere, and use issue preclusion.

• Rule 19: first ask "should the absentee party be joined?" then "can the absentee party be joined?" Do not skip that second part: does the court have jurisdiction over them? Then 19(b) tells factors to weigh in deciding about dismissal.
• Temple v. Synthes
  Joint tortfeasors are permissive parties, not compulsory. Rule 19 does not override this.

  Note that in WI we don't say "abuse of discretion," we say "erroneous exercise of discretion." Also note that you can cite to unpublished opinions in WI sometimes, but not per curiam decisions.

  Still, most plaintiffs would join. But we let parties control the structure of their suits: Rule 19 does not require the most efficient disposal of lawsuits.

• Helzerg's Diamond v. Valley West
  You're not an indispensible party if your rights arise under a totally different contract. Joinder wasn't feasible, and Lord's could have sued if this judgment impacted their contract. The judgment is not itself a defense to their claim: Lord's wasn't a party, so there's no collateral estoppel.

  But this is arguably deciding on the merits, and not just the joinder rules. The court does this to Valley West because it thinks they have brought this trouble on themselves-- but that's not a factor to be weighed at joinder time.

• Intervention: Rule 24. I want to get into a lawsuit that got started without me. It can be permissive or of right.
• Natural Resources Defense Council v. US Nuclear Reg. Commn
  Sometimes you don't have to show much of a burden in order to get intervention.
• Writing assignment due 12/5. We want to be in state court, so use what we know about joinder to make it non-removable.