joinder

1. The act of joining.
2. Law.
   1. A joining of causes of action or defense in a suit.
   2. A joining of parties in a suit.
   3. Formal acceptance of an issue offered.

[From French joindre, to join, from Old French. See join.]

The union in one lawsuit of multiple parties who have the same rights or against whom rights are claimed as coplaintiffs or codefendants. The combination in one lawsuit of two or more causes of action, or grounds for relief. At common law the acceptance by opposing parties that a particular issue is in dispute.

Joinder of Parties

For two or more persons to join together as coplaintiffs or codefendants in a lawsuit, they generally must share similar rights or liabilities. At common law a person could not be added as a plaintiff unless that person, jointly with the other plaintiffs, was entitled to the whole recovery. A person could not be added as a defendant unless that person, jointly with the other defendants, was liable for the entire demand. To be more efficient, reduce costs, and reduce litigation, the modern practice of law does not proceed on the same principles.

Permissive Joinder

According to modern law, a person who has no material interest in the subject of the litigation or in the relief demanded is not a proper party and may not be part of the legal action. A proper party is one who may be joined in the action but whose failure to do so does not prevent the court from hearing the case and settling the controversy. A proper party may be added to a lawsuit through a process called permissive joinder.

The statutes that govern permissive joinder generally provide that plaintiffs may unite in one action if they claim a right to relief for injuries arising from the same occurrence or transaction. Likewise, persons may join as defendants in an action if assertions made against them claim a right to relief for damages emerging from the same transaction or occurrence.

Compulsory Joinder

If a court is being asked to decide the rights of a person who is not named as a party to the lawsuit, that party must be joined in the lawsuit or else the court may not hear the case. Such persons are deemed indispensable or necessary parties, and they may be added as parties to the lawsuit through a process termed compulsory joinder. For reasons of equity and convenience, it is often best for the court not to proceed if an indispensable party is absent and cannot be joined. In some circumstances, however, a court may still hear a matter if an indispensable party is absent, but its judgment can affect only the interests of the parties before it.

To determine whether a person is an indispensable party, the court must carefully examine the facts of the case, the relief sought, and the nature and extent of the absent person's interest in the controversy raised in the lawsuit. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and many state rules give courts flexible guidelines for this determination. These rules provide that the court should look to various pragmatic factors and determine whether it is better to dismiss the action owing to the absence of a party, or to proceed without that party. Specifically, the court should consider whether complete relief could still be accorded the parties who are present, whether the absence of the particular party impairs that party's ability to protect an interest, or whether the absence will leave a party that is present subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple obligations. If the court decides, based on principles of equity and good conscience, that it is best to dismiss the action rather than hear it without the absent party joining the lawsuit, then the absent party is an indispensable party and the case is said to be dismissed for nonjoinder. For example, if one party to a contract asks the court to determine his rights under the contract, and the other party to the contract is absent and cannot be joined, then the court will refuse to hear the case because the other party is indispensable to determining rights under the contract.

Joinder of Action

Under certain circumstances a plaintiff may join several causes of action, or claims for relief, in one complaint, declaration, or petition, even though each could have been the basis for a separate lawsuit. This procedure is not the same as the common one in which a plaintiff relies on more than one theory of recovery or mode of redress to correct a single wrong.

To determine if the plaintiff is joining separate causes of action, as opposed to merely pursuing more than one means of redress, some courts look to whether the plaintiff is seeking to enforce more than one distinct primary right or whether the complaint addresses more than one subject of controversy. Other courts look to whether the claims emanate from a single occurrence or transaction. If the court's inquiry shows that a plaintiff is attempting to join several causes of action into one lawsuit, the court must look to the applicable court rules and statutes to determine if such a joining is permissible.

Modern statutes and rules of practice governing joinder of causes of action vary by jurisdiction. In general, however, they are liberal and encourage joinder when it promotes efficiency in the justice system. For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a plaintiff may join in one suit as many claims as she or he has against an opposing party. Some state rules are similarly broad. Many states provide that the court, on its own motion or on the motion of a party, may consolidate similarly related cases.

Joinder is not always favored by modern rules of court and statutes. Some statutes will not permit the joinder of causes of action that require different places of trial. Also, the various joinder statutes generally provide that inconsistent causes of action — that is, ones that disprove or defeat each other — cannot be joined in the same lawsuit. For example, a plaintiff may not in a single suit rely on a contract as valid and also treat the same contract asrescinded. However, contract and tort actions may be combined in one suit when they arise out of the same occurrence or transaction and are not inconsistent.

Misjoinder

Misjoinder is an objection that may be made when a plaintiff joins separate causes of action that cannot be joined according to the applicable law. Some states require the plaintiff to decide which of the misjoined claims he or she wants to pursue. Other states allow the court to sever the misjoined claims into separate actions.

Joinder of Issue

At common law joinder of issue occurs when one party pleads that an allegation is true and the opposing party denies it, such that both parties are accepting that the particular issue is in dispute.

See: civil procedure.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)

Civil procedure in the United States
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Doctrines of civil procedure Jurisdiction Subject-matter jurisdiction Diversity jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction Removal jurisdiction Venue Change of venue Forum non conveniens Pleadings and motions Service of process Complaint Cause of action Case Information Statement Class action Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Demurrer Answer Affirmative defense Reply Counterclaim Cross-claim Joinder Indispensable party Impleader Interpleader Intervention Pre-trial procedure Discovery Interrogatories Depositions Request for Admissions Resolution Without Trial Default judgment Summary judgment Voluntary dismissal Involuntary dismissal Settlement Trial Parties Plaintiff Defendant Jury Voir dire Burden of proof Judgment Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) Renewed JMOL (JNOV) Motion to set aside judgment New trial Remedy Injunction Damages Attorney's fees American rule English rule Declaratory judgment Appeal Mandamus Certiorari
view/edit this template

Criminal law

Joinder in criminal law is a legal term which refers to the inclusion of additional counts or additional defendants on an indictment. In English law, charges for any offence may be joined in the same indictment if those charges are founded on the same facts, or form or are a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar nature. A number of defendants may be joined in the same indictment even if no single count applies to all of them, provided that the counts are sufficiently linked. The judge retains the option to order separate trials.

Civil law

Joinder in civil law falls under two categories: joinder of claims, and joinder of parties. Joinder of claims is addressed in U.S. law by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure No. 18(a). That Rule allows claimants to consolidate all claims that they have against an individual who is already a party to the case. Claimants may bring new claims even if these new claims are not related to the claims already stated. Note that joinder of claims is never compulsory (i.e., joinder is always permissive), and that joinder of claims requires that the court's subject matter jurisdiction requirements regarding the new claims be met for each new claim.

Joinder of parties also falls into two categories: permissive joinder and compulsory joinder. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 20 addresses permissive joinder. Permissive joinder allows multiple plaintiffs to join in an action if each of their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, and if there is a common question of law or fact relating to all plaintiffs' claims. Permissive joinder is also appropriate to join multiple defendants, as long as the same considerations as for joining multiple plaintiffs are met. Also, the court must have personal jurisdiction over every defendant joined in the action, as the court has no authority under Rule 20 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Rules 18 and 20 have different effects depending on when they are invoked. If part of an original pleading, they will form part of the case. However, if the time for modifying the pleadings has passed, the pleading must be amended through application of the amending rule, 15a. There is a discretionary period during which original pleadings may be amended, that is as a matter of course at the beginning of trial, and later with the discretion of the opposing party or judge. Rules 18 and 20 delineate who can be joined. However, if not pleaded originally, parties can be brought in only by way of amendment. Rule 15 describes the process for amending a claim.

Under the concept of compulsory joinder, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 mandates that some parties be joined. Parties that must be joined are those necessary and indispensable to the litigation. Note, though, that while "necessary" parties must be joined if that joinder is possible, the litigation will continue without them if joinder is impossible. If "indispensable" parties cannot be joined, by contrast, the litigation cannot go forward.

Under Rule 42 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court, if actions involve a common question of law or fact, may join any or all issues, consolidate the actions or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. The court may also, for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite or improve economy, order a separate trial of one or more separate issues or claims.

References

• Yeazell, Stephen C., Federal Rules of Civil Procedure With Selected Statutes, Cases, and Other Materials. Aspen Publishers, 2007.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)