Hogan vs. Gawker II: A Statutory Solution to Fraudulent Joinder

This Article will first review the intersection of federal jurisdiction and litigation strategy by examining the requirements for diversity jurisdiction in federal court as well as the circumstances that must be present to allow a defendant to remove a case from state court to federal court. The Article will then review the history of the court-created doctrine of fraudulent joinder, and will examine the various tests currently in use by the lower federal courts. The Article will then address whether it makes more sense to create a statutory solution, and will examine and analyze the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016, which was recently passed by the House of Representatives. After analyzing the Act, this Article will conclude that, while a statutory solution to this issue is appropriate, the current proposal needs to be adjusted in various ways

The Proper Standard of Review for Required Party Determinations Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19

Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, concerning the required joinder of parties, ensures that all parties with an interest in an action are joined in the litigation. At any time during the suit, a court may determine that an absent party has a specific interest that requires its presence in the dispute. When the court cannot join the absent party, however, the court must use Rule 19(b) to determine whether to continue the litigation without the absentee or dismiss the suit entirely. Despite the potentially drastic consequence of dismissal, federal courts of appeals cannot agree on the proper standard of review for Rule 19(b) decisions. Should the court review the decision de novo as if it were examining the issue for the first time? Or should it review for abuse of discretion with deference to the district court’s analysis? This Note explores the history and application of Rule 19 before examining the two standards of review and the factors set out by the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Underwood to help appellate courts determine which of the two standards should apply. This Note argues that an analysis of those factors demonstrates that both Rule 19(a) and 19(b) decisions should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. It proposes that reviewing courts should use the single standard, but that the amount of deference given to the district court opinion depends on the specific determination within the larger Rule 19 inquiry

The New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The amendments to the civil rules continue a process of transition from legal formulas toward adaptation to the practicalities of the various factual situations involved. This process was commenced with the early reform movement when the strictures of common-law, form-of-action pleading were abolished and the artificial separation of law and equity was ended. It continued through the original promulgation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which attempted to eliminate many of the legalistic but artificial restrictions that code practice perpetuated. The current amendments move closer to what Mr. Justice Goldberg termed the aims of a liberal, nontechnical application of federal procedural rules, rules that are designed to place before the court the actual substantive issues in the case with the minimum amount of formal procedural restrictions needed to ensure fair and orderly proceedings

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services Inc.

In diversity cases, only one plaintiff or class member must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement