Also known as: joinder in pleadings · joinder
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The procedural mechanism by which additional parties or claims are incorporated into an existing lawsuit through the filing of pleadings. It enables courts to resolve related disputes in a single action while respecting limits on subject-matter jurisdiction and venue.
Jeffrey Jha and 450 other investors filed a securities suit against Jackson Mutual alleging misleading disclosures. The complaint sought class certification. The court found the class so numerous that adding every investor individually would be impractical and certified the class under the governing rule.
Jorge Juarez sued Jarvis Aviation in federal court under federal aviation law for damages from a crash. After discovery revealed a related state-law indemnity claim against Jones Petroleum, Jorge added the claim. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction because the new claim formed part of the same case or controversy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Justin Jarvis transferred real property to Jensen Farms without his wife Joanna Jung's written consent. After Justin's death, the probate court included the property in the augmented estate because the surviving spouse had not joined the transfer in writing.
Jasmine Jordan sued a foreign seller in State A court over land located in State B. The seller moved to join additional parties. The court applied its own procedural rules to the joinder question while using State B law for the underlying property issues.
Joy Jiang, an escrow agent, held funds claimed by both Jackson Mutual and Jarvis Aviation. Fearing double liability, Joy filed an interpleader action naming both claimants as defendants. The court permitted the joinder even though the claims lacked a common origin.
Joanna Jung, a U.S. citizen, sued a foreign manufacturer and a domestic supplier in federal court. The foreign defendant could be sued in any district. Its joinder was disregarded when determining proper venue for the domestic defendant.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), supplemental jurisdiction is unavailable over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 if doing so would destroy complete diversity in a diversity-only case. The court may deny joinder or remand after removal under § 1447(e).
Supporting sources
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district, and that defendant's joinder is disregarded when determining venue for the remaining defendants.
Supporting sources
Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1) permits joinder of claimants who may expose the plaintiff to double or multiple liability. The rule applies even if the claims lack a common origin or are adverse and independent.
Supporting sources
…There is no support for the dissent's novel contention, ibid. , that Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing joinder of indispensable parties, somehow alters our longstanding rule that jurisdiction is to be assessed under the facts existing when the complaint is filed. The redressability element of the…