Also known as: series of transaction or occurrence · continuing course of conduct · pattern of acts
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factual connection among multiple events that permits claims to be joined in one action because they share a logical relationship in time, place, or cause. The connection exists when the asserted rights to relief arise jointly, severally, or in the alternative from those events and at least one common question of law or fact will arise.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Apex Studio and Fair Museum each contracted separately with Premier Gallery to ship paintings. Premier assigned both shipments to one truck driven by its employee. The truck crashed once, destroying paintings from both galleries. Apex Studio and Fair Museum filed a joint suit against Premier and the driver. Their claims satisfy the requirement because the losses arose from the single collision.
Dr. Laura Singh and Dr. Ethan Morales performed one heart procedure together. A catheter supplied by CardioTech malfunctioned during that procedure. Both doctors suffered reputational harm and higher insurance costs traceable to the same malfunction. They filed a joint products liability action. Their claims meet the requirement because the harms flow from the identical operative event.
Yvonne at Plant 1 and a coworker at Plant 2 sued their employer after corporate headquarters issued one directive requiring identical ventilation upgrades at every facility. Both workers allege the same negligent redesign caused their respiratory illnesses. They filed a joint complaint asserting negligence and strict liability. Their claims satisfy the requirement because the uniform corporate policy supplies the shared factual nucleus.
Plaintiffs must show that their rights to relief arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and that at least one common question of law or fact will arise in the action. Courts apply a logical-relationship test that examines whether the claims share a common factual nucleus in time, place, or cause. Separate contracts or distinct solicitation methods do not automatically defeat joinder when a single event or uniform policy connects the claims.
Supporting sources
…based on postjudgment acts and a new legal theory. It does not ask us to adjudicate a person’s status. And it does not involve a continuing course of conduct to be proved by the State’s new acts. The final illustration actually undermines the Court’s holding. The Reporter’s Note links this illustration to a Fifth Circuit case, Exhibitors…
…severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction,
Yes. A single accident, fire, or equipment failure supplies the necessary occurrence even though the plaintiffs negotiated separate contracts. The rule focuses on the shared originating event rather than the form of any contractual arrangements. Distinct damage calculations or force-majeure clauses may require separate proof at trial but do not preclude initial joinder.
Supporting sources
A single company-wide directive or budgeting practice creates a common question when the same actors apply the same policy to multiple plaintiffs. Discovery concerning the policy's scope, the decision-makers, and the criteria used will be identical for all claims. The existence of one such common factual issue satisfies the second prong of the rule even if plant-specific or solicitation-specific details later require separate attention.
Supporting sources
Yes. A single continuous discharge or one burst pipe constitutes the same occurrence or series of occurrences even if the effects reach different plaintiffs on different days. The rule treats the underlying spill or flooding event as the unifying transaction. Common questions about negligence, causation, and the defendant's maintenance practices then support joinder.
Supporting sources