Opinion ID: 1989534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the Attempted Joinder Proper?

Text: The initial issue to be resolved is whether the district court correctly determined that Neill's attempt to join in the Swift lawsuit without obtaining leave of court or consent of the parties involved was improper. Neill relies on Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which provides for the joinder of multiple plaintiffs, as authority for his action: Any number of persons who claim any relief, jointly, severally or alternatively, arising out of or respecting the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences, may join as plaintiffs in a single action, when it presents or involves any question of law or fact common to all of them. He points out that this rule does not require a joining party to obtain leave of court or the consent of the original parties to the lawsuit. We think the explanation for the failure of rule 23 to include any procedure for joining a pending lawsuit is that the rule does not contemplate a unilateral joinder by a person not a party to the suit. This conclusion is supported by the language of rule 23 and the scope of other rules of civil procedure that provide for the participation of a nonparty in a pending lawsuit. We start with an examination of the language of rule 23, specifically the operative word join. Black's Law Dictionary contains the following relevant definitions: Join. To unite; to come together; to combine or unite in time, effort, action; to enter into an alliance. Joinder. Joining or coupling together; uniting two or more constituents or elements in one; uniting with another person in some legal step or proceeding; union; concurrence. . . . . Joinder of parties. The act of uniting as parties to an action all persons who have the same rights or against whom rights are claimed, as either co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. Black's Law Dictionary 836 (6th ed.1990) (emphasis added). To unite is to join in an act; to concur; to act in concert. Id. at 1533 (emphasis added). The noun concert is defined as agreement in a design or plan : union formed by mutual communication of opinions and views. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 470 (unabr. ed.1993) (emphasis added). The verb concert has a similar meaning: to plan together. Id. Thus, [a] person is deemed to act in concert when he acts with another to bring about some preconceived result. Black's Law Dictionary 289 (emphasis added). From these definitions, it appears that the act of joinder contemplates a concerted effort on the part of more than one individual, rather than the unilateral action of one person. See Thompson v. Boggs, 33 F.3d 847, 858 (7th Cir.1994) (holding analogous federal rule did not authorize the filing of a motion to join by a nonparty to the lawsuit); Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Samuel Moore & Co., 436 F.Supp. 498, 500 (N.D.Ohio 1977) (same). Thus, we think rule 23 governs situations where individuals come together and, if the requirements of the rule are met, mutually agree to join their claims together in one lawsuit. This court's interpretation of Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 24, an analogous rule governing the permissive joinder of defendants, supports this conclusion. [2] When a plaintiff seeks to join an additional defendant after the original defendant has answered, the plaintiff must seek leave of court to amend the petition under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 88. [3] See West v. Hawker, 237 N.W.2d 802, 806 (Iowa 1976). In West, we held that rules 24 and 88 must be read together so that defendants who have answered will have an opportunity to object to amendments made which might affect their preparation for trial. Id. We observed that even an amendment adding parties might affect such matters as decisions regarding cross-petitions or cross-claims, the scheduling of trial, and trial strategy. Id. This rationale is equally applicable to rule 23 governing the joinder of plaintiffs. Thus, rule 23 and rule 88 must also be read together to require a plaintiff seeking to join a new plaintiff, after the defendant has answered, to obtain leave of court or the consent of the defendant. In this way, the affected defendant will have the opportunity to object. Clearly, this procedure is not available to a nonparty because rule 88, allowing the filing of amendments, applies only to a party. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 88. The prohibition of unilateral joinder by nonparties is consistent with the general rule that [p]ersons who are not parties of record to a suit have no standing therein which will enable them to take part in or control the proceedings. If they have occasion to ask [for] relief in relation to the matters involved, they must either contrive to obtain the status of parties in the suit or they must institute an independent suit. 59 Am.Jur.2d Parties § 8, at 388 (1987) (emphasis added). Our rules provide for both options. Under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 75 a nonparty may obtain the status of a party through the process of intervention: Any person interested in the subject matter of the litigation, or the success of either party to the action, or against both parties, may intervene at any time before trial begins, by joining with plaintiff or defendant or claiming adversely to both. Rule 76 requires that the person seeking to intervene must file a petition and have copies of it served by the clerk on each party against whom the intervenor asserts a right. The party served then has seven days to move or plead to the petition of intervention. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 76. These rules plainly govern the procedure for the inclusion of a nonparty in a pending lawsuit. See Black's Law Dictionary 820 (defining intervention as [t]he procedure by which a third person, not originally a party to the suit, but claiming an interest in the subject matter, comes into the case, in order to protect his right or interpose his claim). In addition to intervention, an individual has the option of instituting an independent lawsuit and then consolidating it with another action: Unless some party shows he will be prejudiced thereby the court may consolidate separate actions which involve common questions of law or fact or order a single trial of any or all issues therein. In such cases it may make such orders concerning the proceedings as tend to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Iowa R.Civ.P. 185. To allow a nonparty to join a lawsuit at any time without leave of court or permission of the parties would result in chaos and deprive the court of its ability to ensure the orderly processing of cases. Moreover, such a procedure would completely circumvent our rules governing intervention and consolidation and would be inconsistent with our interpretation of rule 23. In summary, the rules governing permissive joinder are not available to nonparties. The district court was correct in so ruling. We turn now to a consideration of the proper remedy.