Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Because Joanne's claim in the action does not directly relate to the breach of contract claim filed by Judi, Joanne does not have a right to intervene in the action. However, she can still intervene under the auspices of permissive intervention. Joanne's claim against Linda, also for breach of contract, shares a common subject with the action filed by Judi in that both actions stem from the same action committed by Linda. Further, Joanne's contract with Linda is directly related to the contract between Linda and Judi and Barbara. Thus, the outcome of the claim filed by Judi will affect Joanne's claim. For these reasons, along with reasons of Judicial economy, it is more likely than not that a court will permit Joanne to intervene in the action at hand.
Rule of Civil Procedure 19 governs the joinder of parties. As a general rule, a person is to be joined whenever joinder is feasible. Feasibility is determined when the joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction and a finding that 1) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or 2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situation that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or leave any of the persons...
If she is not joined as a party, Linda will continue to face additional obligations for the same act of breach of contract as Barbara will likely bring her own claim for the same action. Further, in order to protect her interest in the action, it is essential that Barbara be joined as she is a party to the contract in question.
Finally, according to Rule of Civil Procedure 14, a Defendant may bring in a third party whenever that third party may be liable to the third-party. In the case at hand, the supplier is not likely to be liable to any of the plaintiffs as the contract did not involve the supplier but only Linda. Thus, Linda will not be able to bring her supplier in to this action. Linda may file a cross-action against her supplier but her grounds that she was pressured to increase her sales does not seem to carry any legal grounds.
Bibliography
Farnsworth, Allan E. (2004): Contracts. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Friedenthal, Jack H. (2005): Hornbook on Civil Procedure. Thomson West.
Yeazell, Stephen. (2004): Civil Procedure. Aspen Law & Business.
Bibliography
Farnsworth, Allan E. (2004): Contracts. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Friedenthal, Jack H. (2005): Hornbook on Civil Procedure. Thomson West.
Yeazell, Stephen. (2004): Civil Procedure. Aspen Law & Business.
In terms of how the book is structured, the first two chapters logically refer to jurisdiction issues, more specifically on personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The former discusses the court's jurisdiction over a case and the different situations in which it is able to involve itself in hearing a case and in proposing a judgment in that respective case. Notable theories are enumerated here, including the traditional power theory and
Harmonization of International Civil Procedure and International Commercial Arbitration The objective of this study is to address the idea that when all the recently formulated harmonization instruments relating to transnational commercial litigation (including the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements) have been incorporated into national law or international practice, the choice between arbitration and litigation will be put on a level playing field for international commercial contracting parties, with both
" (Redish and Phillips, 1979) the relationship is not as clear between the standard and balancing test that the court used in the Hanna and Byrd case. (Redish and Phillips, 1979; paraphrased) Burbank (1934) states in the "Rules Enabling Act of 1934" published in May 1982 in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review " that unless one is a cynic, it would leave one to wonder "that the original Federal Rules
These rules developed after a long history of court decisions on related topics. Pleadings and Procedural Rules Once jurisdiction and applicable bodies of law have been established, effective and comprehensive complaints must be made before the matter can proceed. Complaint sufficiency varies from court to court, but generally includes the facts of the case and often cites relevant laws regarding jurisdiction and other matters, when they are not readily apparent. There
T) he FBI can now act like a domestic CIA when seeking a criminal conviction. It can obtain a secret warrant from a secret court to gather evidence of crime without ever having to present to the court evidence that the person upon whom it wishes to spy is involved in crime. Moreover, evidence gathered in criminal case can now be more easily shared - without a court order -
Obviously, if the doctors were following established medical procedures and the patient died, such an award seems ridiculous. However, if the doctors lied about the treatment being received or refused to treat a patient because of a personal characteristic, such as race or religion, then such a huge award would send a message to other doctors not to engage in such behavior. While capping award amounts in medical malpractice