In Pro Per
Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder of Parties

Rule 20

FRCP §§20 deals with Permissive Joinder of Parties. It basically means who gives this permission of which we speak? Good question and one that I'm not so sure I have the exact right answer to, but let me guess by saying that because plaintiff is the party which has the discretion of using Rule 20, that it is the plaintiff's permission which concerns us.

Though in reality I think it's the court that gives permission. But just the fact that you're reading this sentence will now make you remember that Rule 20 is done at the discretion of the plaintiff(s).

Moving on... there's a lot to cover on this rule...

Basically Rule 20 allows two types of permissive joinder of parties, and knowing that there's two basic types of parties in a suit — plaintiffs and defendants. It just so happens that Rule 20 allows permissive joinder of plaintiffs and of defendants:

1. JOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS - multiple plaintiffs want to join to nail a defendant

A. We have "STOO" - claims arising out of the same transaction(s) or occurrence(s).

B. We have common question(s) of law or facts common to all plaintiffs.

2. JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS - one plaintiff wants to nail multiple defendants

A. We have "STOO" - claims arising out of the same transaction(s) or occurrence(s).

B. We have common question(s) of law or facts common to all plaintiffs.

3. Combinations of (1) and (2) can result in multiple defendants and multiple defendants. Next, let's look at PJ and SMJ to see what this permissive joinder does to them.

Personal Jurisdiction:

If multiple defendants are joined
- each must be personally served
- each must have individual PJ by minimum contacts
- each must fall under the long arm statute if diverse (remember federal question cases need no long arm statute)

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

1. Domicile - This one is tricky. In a diversity case all courts agree that there must be at least one plaintiff who is diverse from all defendants. If, however, there are some othe plaintiffs who are not completely diverse then the some courts say, "Okie Dokie," and some say, "no way Jose."

2. Amount in Controversy

A. Plaintiffs - This is also tricky. Aggregation of plaintiffs' claims is not allowed if not one plaintiff meets the amount all by his lonesome. If one plaintiff does, but the others don't, the courts are split as to whether the plaintiffs can aggregate their claims to make the amount for all

B. Defendants - Each defendant must meet the required amount in controversy all by himself.