Ch7. Multi-Party Litigation — Joinder, Intervention, and Class Actions

Joinder of Parties

Permissive joinder (FRCP 20):
  Multiple plaintiffs or defendants may be joined in
  one action when:
    ① The claims arise from the same transaction,
       occurrence, or series of T/O; AND
    ② Any common question of law or fact will arise.
  Parties joined under Rule 20 act independently —
  one party's acts or rulings do not bind the others.
  → Analogous to the Korean "통상 공동소송."

Compulsory joinder — required parties (FRCP 19):
  A party must be joined if:
    ① Complete relief cannot be accorded without them; OR
    ② Disposing of the action without them would impair
       their interests or create a risk of inconsistent
       obligations for the existing parties.
  If joinder is not feasible (e.g., no personal jurisdiction),
  the court must decide whether to proceed without the
  party ("indispensable party" analysis — FRCP 19(b)).
  → Analogous to the Korean "필수 공동소송."

Why join parties?
  Judicial economy — one proceeding resolves all related claims.
  Avoidance of inconsistent judgments.
  Full relief to all interested persons.

Intervention by Third Parties

Intervention as of right (FRCP 24(a)):
  A non-party must be permitted to intervene when:
    ① The motion is timely; AND
    ② The applicant claims an interest relating to the
       transaction at issue; AND
    ③ Disposing of the action may impair that interest; AND
    ④ The existing parties do not adequately represent
       the applicant's interest.
  → Party has a right to intervene — court has no discretion.
  Analogous to the Korean "독립당사자참가."

Permissive intervention (FRCP 24(b)):
  A non-party may be permitted to intervene when:
    ① The motion is timely; AND
    ② The applicant has a claim or defense that shares
       a common question of law or fact with the main action.
  Court has discretion — may deny to avoid undue delay
  or prejudice to original parties.
  → Analogous to the Korean "보조참가."

Timeliness factors (courts consider):
  Stage of the proceeding.
  Prejudice to original parties.
  Prejudice to the applicant if denied.
  Unusual circumstances.

Class Actions (FRCP 23)

Class action:
  One or more named plaintiffs sue (or are sued) on behalf
  of all members of a defined class.
  → Modern equivalent of Korean "선정당사자 소송"
    but far more powerful: court certifies the class;
    absent members are bound by the judgment.

Rule 23(a) — four prerequisites:
  ① Numerosity: class is so numerous that joinder
       of all members is impracticable.
  ② Commonality: questions of law or fact common
       to all class members.
  ③ Typicality: named plaintiff's claims are typical
       of the class.
  ④ Adequacy: named plaintiff and counsel will
       fairly and adequately represent the class.

Rule 23(b) — type of class action:
  23(b)(1): Mandatory class — separate actions would
    create inconsistent adjudications or impair absent
    members' interests (e.g., limited-fund cases).
  23(b)(2): Injunctive / declaratory relief class —
    defendant acted on grounds generally applicable
    to the class.
  23(b)(3): Damages class — common questions
    predominate over individual issues, and class
    action is superior to other available methods.
    → Members must receive notice and may opt out.

Class certification (FRCP 23(c)):
  Court certifies (or refuses to certify) the class
  at an early practicable time.
  Appeal of certification order available as of right
  (FRCP 23(f)).

Securities class actions:
  Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) adds
  lead-plaintiff procedure and heightened pleading rules.
  Analogous to Korean "증권 집단소송."

Consumer class actions:
  Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) grants federal subject-
  matter jurisdiction when aggregate amount > $5 million
  and minimal diversity exists.

Substitution and Representation

Legal representation (counsel):
  Any party may appear through counsel of its choice.
  Corporations and other legal entities must be
  represented by licensed counsel (they cannot appear pro se).

Pro se appearance:
  Individual litigants may represent themselves in
  federal court (28 U.S.C. § 1654).
  Pleadings of pro se parties are held to a less
  stringent standard (Haines v. Kerner).

Substitution of parties (FRCP 25):
  If a party dies: motion to substitute the decedent's
  representative within 90 days of suggestion of death.
  If a party is incompetent: the court may order
  substitution of a proper party.

Guardian ad litem:
  Minor or incompetent person must be represented
  by a responsible adult or professional guardian.
  Court may appoint one sua sponte.

Interpleader (FRCP 22 / 28 U.S.C. § 1335):
  A stakeholder facing multiple adverse claims to the
  same fund or property deposits the money/property
  with the court and forces the claimants to litigate
  among themselves.
  Minimal diversity + $500 amount-in-controversy
  (statutory interpleader, § 1335).
  Rule 22 interpleader requires complete diversity
  and $75,000 AIC.

Permissive vs. Compulsory (Required) Joinder ★★★★★ : FRCP 20 (permissive): same T/O + common question; parties act independently. FRCP 19 (required): complete relief impossible or interests impaired without the party; may be indispensable. Memory hook: 20 = may join; 19 = must join or explain why not

Intervention as of Right vs. Permissive Intervention ★★★★★ : Rule 24(a): applicant has protectable interest that will be impaired — court must allow. Rule 24(b): common question — court has discretion. Memory hook: “As of right” = impaired interest; permissive = common question only

FRCP 23 Class Certification Prerequisites ★★★★☆ : Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, Adequacy (NCTA). Then satisfy one of Rule 23(b)‘s categories. Memory hook: NCTA + b(1)/b(2)/b(3)

Practice Quizzes

Q. In a required-party case under FRCP 19, when is a party deemed “indispensable”?

Under FRCP 19(b), when a required party cannot be joined (e.g., joinder would destroy diversity or the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the party), the court weighs four factors to decide whether to proceed or dismiss: (1) prejudice to the absent party or existing parties; (2) whether relief can be shaped to lessen that prejudice; (3) whether a judgment in the party’s absence would be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed. If the court determines that the absent party is “indispensable,” the action must be dismissed.

Q. Why do absent class members in a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class have an opt-out right while those in a 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2) class generally do not?

Rule 23(b)(3) classes are created primarily for damages and may involve highly individualized circumstances. Absent members have notice and the right to opt out so they can pursue individual claims if they believe they could do better. By contrast, 23(b)(1) classes involve situations where piecemeal adjudications would create legal inconsistencies or impair the rights of absent members regardless of their preferences, and 23(b)(2) classes seek uniform injunctive or declaratory relief that cannot practicably be split class-by-class. Mandatory joinder in (b)(1) and (b)(2) is therefore justified because opt-outs would undermine the purpose of the class.