Law School Resources
Civil Procedures
Joinder of
Claims and Parties: Expanding the Scope of the Civil
F.
Interpleader – procedure whereby a Party
against whom several mutually exclusive Claims have
been asserted w/r/t the same debt, fund or property
may join the claimants in the same action and
require then to litigate among themselves their
rights, if any, to the debt, fund or property.
1.
Historical Limitation on the Use of
Interpleader
a.
Hancock Oil (P) v Independent Distributing Co (D)
·
P
filed a suit seeking Interpleading against 2 groups,
each of which asserted the right to receive
royalties reserved under the terms of P’ lease.
2.
Jurisdictional Problem
a.
New
York Life Ins Co (D) v Dunleavy (P)
·
P
brought action against D for the surrender value of
a life ins policy on her father. D asserted a s a
defense an prior Interpleader action instituted by D
in Pennsylvania after a garnishment by a 3rd
3..
Interpleader in the Federal Courts
a.
Federal Statutory Interpleader
b.
Federal Rule 22 Interpleader
c.
Liability of Stake holder
(1)
Pan
American Fire & Casualty (D) v Revere (P)
·
Truck
collided with a school bus head on killing 3 and
injuring many more; a few moments later 2 cars
following the bus collided. D, the insurer for the
truck, having 3 suits filed against it, instituted
the Interpleading action and deposited the $100,000
full amount of its policy limit, with the Ct,
stating it had no interest in the ins proceeds.
d.
Improper Use of Interpleader
(1)
State Farm Fire & Casualty (D) v Tashire (D)
·
G. Interventionon
1.
2.2.
Types of Intervention
a.
Intervention of Right
- Rule 24(a) Intervention is granted as a matter of
right where:
(1)
A Fed’l statute confers an Unconditional
right to intervene; or
(2)
Disposition of the pending action would as a
practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s
interest in the subject matter of that action.
b.
Permissive Intervention
Rule 24(b) The Ct has discretion to permit a
non[arty to intervene if:
(1)
(2)
The applicant’s claim or defense has a common
question of law or fact with the main action.
3.
Effective Intervention
a.
Jurisdiction –
1.
If Intervention is a Matter of Right, the
Intervenor’s claim is deemed “ancillary” to the main
litigation and no Jurisdctnl problem is presented.
a.a.
NOT
destroy Diversity Jurisdiction.
2.
If Intervention is Permissive, this is in
effect a new Claim and is proper ONLY if independent
grounds of Jurisdctn – BOTH with regard to
Citizenship AND Jurisdictional amount – exist as to
the Intervenors.
b.b.
Judgment
4.
State Rules
5.
Application – Intervention NOT Available
a.
·
P sued
D for damages suffered in auto accident resulting
from D’s reckless drinking and driving. P’s original
Complaint was amended to omit reference to D’s
drinking. D’s insurer filed a Complaint in
Intervention alleging that P and D colluded to
defraud them and require them to pay for the
accident.
6.
Application – Intervention Proper
a.
Smuck (D) v Hobson (P)
·
In a
prior case, (Hobson (P) v Hansen (D)) in
which P was the D, a Class Action suit against a
local Board of Education and its individual members
for racial and economic discrimination. The Ct ruled
in favor of the Class Action. The Brd of Education
decided not to appeal the case. T that point, P the
former superintendent and Smuck (P) one of the
dissenting Board members appealed. Both Hansen (P)
and 20 parents of affected schoolchildren also
appealed and moved to Intervene.
7.
Stare Decisis
[“to stand by things decided” - Precedent] as Basis
for Intervention
a.
Atlantis Development Corp (P) v US (D)
·
P lay
claim to some offshore submerged reefs and began
developing them for commercial use. The US asserted
that permission was needed to erect structures on
the reef and the P attempted to convince the US
Corps of Engineers that the reefs were beyond the
Jurisdctn of the US. The Corps of Engineers brought
suit against the General Contractor, Acme general
Contractors, for trespass. P sought to Intervene in
that suit under Stare Decisis theory, that
the decision in that case would impact its rights.
|