Joinder of Claims
For Plaintiffs Claims
Rule 18 permits a Plaintiff to join their claims. In essence, a π may join any and all claims that they have against a single ∆.
-
However, this can create trial management problems—as a ∆ like Amazon/Microsoft could join all of its possible claims against one of its business partners.
-
Rule 42(b) ameliorates this problem by permitting judges to sever claims for trial convenience.
-
While Rule 18 permits joinder, it doesn't compel it.
-
Rule 18 has no problem or interaction with jurisdiction—nor does it deal with it at all.
-
In terms of joining state and federal claims, then, teh determinant for such is the applicability of the four factors of Supplemental Jurisdiction—as found in 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
-
In Defendant's Answer: Counterclaims and Crossclaims
In considering pleadings, we considered responses that the ∆ may make to teh π's complaint, but we didn't explore the possibility that the ∆ might have claims against the π.
-
Before the FRCP, this integrated manner by which to join counter/crossclaims didn't exist.
-
∆s could either bring a separate suit or—in limited cases—offset the π's recovery in such separate suit, but they couldn't recover in the original action.
-
Today, Rule 13 permits this—and sometimes requires it.
- See Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC.