Also known as:multifariousness · multifariously · joinder · misjoinder
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
1
An adjective characterizing a pleading that improperly joins distinct matters or causes of action and thereby confounds them.
2
An adjective characterizing the improper joinder of parties in a single lawsuit.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Sense 1
1
Sense 1
An adjective characterizing a pleading that improperly joins distinct matters or causes of action and thereby confounds them.
Examples5
Class Action Numerosity Challenge
Melanie Morris filed a putative class action against Millennium Media alleging wage violations on behalf of thousands of remote workers across multiple states. The complaint joined twenty distinct state-law claims arising from separate employment contracts and different work locations. The court found the pleading multifarious because the distinct claims could not be efficiently tried together even though the proposed class satisfied numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1).
Apportionment Suit Political Question
Sense 2
2
Sense 2
An adjective characterizing the improper joinder of parties in a single lawsuit.
Examples1
Interpleader Double Liability Claim
Momentum Capital held funds claimed by both Mariam Mansour and a competing creditor. The company filed an interpleader action that also asserted an unrelated breach-of-contract claim against a third party. The court struck the multifarious contract claim because Rule 22 permits joinder only of parties exposing the plaintiff to double or multiple liability on the same fund.
Mustafa Mahmoud sued state officials over a new congressional map that split his county into three districts. The complaint also challenged unrelated referendum procedures and Senate impeachment rules in the same pleading. The court dismissed the multifarious claims because the apportionment issue alone triggered the Baker factors while the other matters raised separate justiciability problems.
Supplemental Jurisdiction Dispute
Mason McCarthy brought a federal diversity contract claim against Metro Bank and then added state-law tort claims against two additional defendants arising from separate loan transactions. The court held the added claims multifarious and declined supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367 because they did not form part of the same case or controversy.
Augmented Estate Joinder Issue
Monica Morgan petitioned to include certain lifetime transfers in her late husband's augmented estate. The petition also sought to set aside an unrelated conveyance to a third party that had never been consented to by the surviving spouse. The probate court rejected the multifarious pleading because the second transfer lacked the required written joinder or consent.
Choice of Law Issue Separation
Miguel Mendoza sued over the transfer of land located in State X while the parties were domiciled in State Y. The complaint joined both capacity-to-transfer issues and local procedural questions in a single count. The court treated the pleading as multifarious and applied different state laws to the distinct issues under section 222(d).
Frequently Asked2
What makes a pleading multifarious under modern rules?+
A pleading is multifarious when it joins distinct causes of action or parties in a way that confounds them and prevents efficient adjudication. Courts may sever or dismiss such claims under rules addressing misjoinder.
How does the term multifarious relate to class action numerosity?+
A class action may satisfy numerosity even if the underlying pleading is multifarious because the class size makes joinder impracticable. The court can still sever or dismiss improperly joined claims within the complaint.
1
Does multifariousness still require dismissal of an entire action?+
No. Misjoinder is not a ground for dismissing an action. The court may add or drop parties or sever claims on just terms.
462 U.S. 919, 954 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2785 n. 16, 77 L.Ed.2d 317Legislation and Regulation
…or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question." Congress apparently directs its assertion of nonjusticiability to the first of the Baker factors by asserting that Chadha's claim…