Source: https://www.lectlaw.com/files/lws20.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:25:16+00:00

Document:
immaterial for the purposes of the prerequisite.
plaintiff was subjected to race discrimination.
defendants’ conductt is thus basic to each plaintiff’s recovery.
Joinder of multiple claims is permitted by Rule 18(a).
alleged acts of discrimination against each plaintiff.
located at different distances from the plaintiff’s property.
although they are engaged in the same general type of business.
argument can be made that the two could be separated for trial.
joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
number of cases and certainly would not have covered Stanford v.
1) When should a party be joined, if feasible?
given to those already a party [ Hollow relief].
party’s interests might be impaired.
one or more parties with inconsistent or multiple obligations.
3) Is it feasible to join this party?
those already parties. consider the scope of prejudice.
prejudice? look at advisory committee notes.
selection will not be impeded if they are not made parties.
There are however, three expressed limitations on such joinder.
disputed question of federal law.
which provides a statutory basis for supplemental jurisdiction.
occurrence or related series of transactions or occurrences.
over which there is no independent federal source of jurisdiction.
supplemental jurisdiction in a diversity only case.
3) Rule 20 joinder. (permissive joinder).
1) Compulsory counterclaims: Rule 13(a).
joinder of additional parties to compulsory counterclaims.
class members must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
Discretionary rejection of supplemental jurisdiction under sec.
dismissal of the supplemental claim may be compelling.
a supplemental claim was pending in federal court.
adequately represented by existing parties.
a waiver of any constitutional right otherwise timely asserted.
in a lawsuit to voluntarily join the suit as a party.
1) Reduces court time and court clog.
issues combined for consideration through intervention.
complicated issues of collateral estoppel.
Intervention requires a timely application. In Stalworth v.
reasons.] Here, stay against the first suit was ok.
of balance of convenience in favor of the second action [Matter v.
avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
the same division of the same federal district court.
consolidated complaint for pretrial purposes.
“future” parties as can a class action.
the standards for award of attorneys fees may be different.
other district or division where it might have been brought.
place within the division in which it is pending.
“district” includes the territorial jurisdiction of that court.
As amended Oct. 18, 1962, Pub.L. 87 845, sec. n9, 76A Stat. 699.
Either plaintiff or defendant can move to transfer.
convenience weighs decisively in favor of one of the districts.
a factor weighing against granting.
applies even if the transfer is requested by the plaintiff.
appropriate for trial and resolution.
questions to the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained.
and district judges designated by the Chief Justice of the U.S.
geographically good and the judge knew the most about the cases.
under Rule 41(b) and to quash service of process.
parties to the multidistrict litigation.
state law. Also, the proceedings are stayed.
directly rejects its stayed federal claims.
BT Investment Managers, Inc. v. Lewis (page 209; 5th Cir. Ct.
Apply only if there is related state court proceedings.
judgment to a state appellate court.
power would disregard the comity between the States and the U.S.
matters as is the federal court.
State trials will generally not receive review in federal court.
protect or effectuate its judgments.
v. Foster Supreme Court, Page 234].
Microsystems v. Texas Instruments Supreme Court, page 234].
court or its ability to render justice.
state decision to be asserted as res judicatta.
suits, and therefore the Anti Injunction Act did not apply.
million. Court refused to certify a 23(b)(3) class.
attorney is the one making the most money.
receive relief, since suits would be impractical for $250.
judgment favorable to plaintiffs but not by an adverse judgment.
Board of Education of Township High School v. Climatemp, Inc (N.D.
location of the potential plaintiffs.
discovery, and litigation strategy is effectively eliminated.
sufficient to make representation inadquate.
other requirements of Rule 23 must be satisfied.
here, since they were not members of that class.
with some degree of expertise. [Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual].
Also, class representatives need to be adequately financed.
be sued for different and incompatible affirmative relief.
[Employers Insurance of Wausau v. FDIC E.D. Tenn].
class actions in favor of a (b)(1) action.
There are no opt out provisions for this class certification.
likely insolvency of the defendant beyond an assertion.
appropriate where only injunctive or declaratory relief is sought.
and not on the question of damages.
entitled to notice and an opportunity to opt out.
that issue in the second lawsuit.
encountered in the management of a class action.
ad damnum sought by Plaintiffs in this action.
representativeness are also met here. So, this is fair here.
defenses raised by the sheriff atypical of those of his class.
and there is little reason to fear unfairness to absentees.
A defendant class may be certified if due process is satisfied.
certification that the common questions be either of fact or law.
common so long as a single issue is common to all class members.
they are able to do so.
complex program and it is inevitable that problems arise.
obtained profits, also counsels against use of fluid recovery.
nothing to show that individual notice cannot be mailed to each.
dismissed, as the court orders done here.
on the average from these trials was not allowed by the court.
The American rule excludes counsel fees from recoverable costs.
the fund the attorney’s fees incurred in creating the fund.
counsel fees of the representative of the defendant class.
vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. [fee shifting].
the conduct giving rise to the underlying claim.
the contingency of the action.
attorney’s fee for legal services on unsuccessful claims.
the level of success in comparison to the litigation as a whole.
Supreme Court adopted the Lodestar and not the 12 factor test.
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT. The attorney did well or poor in the trial.
special consideration and should rarely be used.
Disadvantages of lodestar are on page 793.
any efforts those counsel made or risks they ran.
The Net’s Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.