Joinder of Claims & Parties
Civil Procedure · Lesson 07
Joinder of Claims & Parties
這一課問的是：是否得依 Rule 13/14/18/19/20/24 將額外請求或當事人加入？
ActorActObjectStandardConsequence
Issue · what this lesson is really about
May the additional claim or party be joined under Rules 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 24?
這一課問的是：是否得依 Rule 13/14/18/19/20/24 將額外請求或當事人加入？
Trigger words & phrases that should flag this issue:
counterclaimcrossclaimthird-partyimpleaderintervenornecessary
Core Terminology · 7 must-know
Tap a card to flip and reveal the meaning.
Rule 13(a)
Tap to see meaning
Compulsory counterclaim — arises out of same transaction.
強制反訴。
Rule 13(b)
Tap to see meaning
Permissive counterclaim.
選擇性反訴。
Rule 14
Tap to see meaning
Impleader of third party for indemnification/contribution.
引入第三方。
Rule 18
Tap to see meaning
Permissive joinder of claims.
選擇性請求加入。
Rule 19
Tap to see meaning
Required parties ("necessary" or "indispensable").
必要當事人。
Rule 20
Tap to see meaning
Permissive joinder of parties.
選擇性當事人加入。
Rule 24
Tap to see meaning
Intervention as of right or permissive.
介入。
Rule Sentence · the workhorse
The Federal Rules permit broad joinder of claims and parties: compulsory and permissive counterclaims (Rule 13), impleader (Rule 14), permissive claim joinder (Rule 18), required party joinder (Rule 19), permissive party joinder (Rule 20), and intervention as of right or permissive (Rule 24).
Sentence Anatomy · 5 roles, 5 colors
Every rule sentence breaks into five visual roles.
Actor 行為人party (or non-party intervenor)當事人（或介入之非當事人）
Act 行為joining additional claim or party加入額外請求或當事人
Object 對象existing action現有訴訟
Standard 法律標準Rules 13/14/18/19/20/24Rules 13/14/18/19/20/24
Consequence 後果joinder permitted or denied允許或否准
Casebook Snapshot · a real American case
Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson
Holding. Under Rule 19, a party is indispensable when the court cannot in equity and good conscience proceed without them. The factors are pragmatic — prejudice, ability to shape relief, adequacy without the party, and whether the plaintiff has an adequate alternative forum — not rigid categories.
Why it matters. Provident replaced bright-line categories with the modern multi-factor practical test for indispensability.
Provident：必要當事人為多因素實踐測試。
Common Mistakes · what trips students
✗ counterclaim 永遠可選擇。
✓ 13(a) compulsory if arising out of same transaction.
13(a) 若出於同一交易則強制。
✗ impleader 對任何 third party 都可。
✓ Only for derivative liability.
僅及衍生責任。
Mini IRAC · build the Application
Issue. Must D plead its counterclaim against P arising from the same accident — or may it bring a separate suit later?
Rule. Under Rule 13(a), a counterclaim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim is compulsory and must be pleaded or it is waived.
Application (model). D's counterclaim arises from the same auto accident underlying P's complaint. Because Rule 13(a) requires counterclaims arising from the same transaction or occurrence to be pleaded in the answer or waived, the fact that D's counterclaim and P's claim arise from the identical accident means the counterclaim is compulsory.
Pick the right element for each blank:
g1.
g2.
g3.
Conclusion. Therefore, D must plead the counterclaim in this action or lose it.
MBE Check · multiple choice
P sues D for a car accident. D believes X (a co-driver) was actually at fault. Can D bring X into the lawsuit?
Practice Drill · tap to build the rule
Drop the chips here in correct order:
Tap chips to add → tap chips in the target to remove: