Opinion ID: 1224651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Permissive Joinder of Claims

Text: The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2018(A) and (B) [38] allow the joinder of a party's claims or remedies against an opponent (or opponents) in the same action. Extant jurisprudence construing the corresponding Federal Rule 18 teaches that once parties are correctly joined in a single action under Federal Rule 20(A)  because the transaction (or common-question) test has been satisfied  additional claims, whether related or unrelated (or by or against all or less than all of the parties), may be joined under Federal Rule 18(a). [39] This rule expresses a philosophy of liberality toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties. [40] The purpose of the rule is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. [41] As a practical matter, Federal Rule 18(a) must be read in conjunction with Federal Rule 42(b), [42] which gives the court broad discretion to order separate trials of claims or issues. [43] Courts generally order separate trials only when clearly necessary. [44] A single trial will generally lessen the delay, expense, and inconvenience to the parties and the courts. [45] The movant has the burden to show prejudice. [46] When interposed below by some of the defendants, misjoinder of both parties and claims was urged not as part of a motion for severance of a party defendant or for separate trial of claims but rather as a ground for dismissal. The trial judge made no disposition of the pressed misjoinder theory. [47] An appellate court may not make first-instance rulings on facts or law. [48] When necessary dispositions are absent, the case must be remanded with directions that they be effected at nisi prius. [49] Because the misjoinder issue does not pertain directly to dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim, we will not address that question here. It should be dealt with in a post-remand proceeding. On review of the dismissal orders under the Conley v. Gibson [50] standard  as we must  we cannot say it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts in support of their claim which would entitle them to relief on this theory.