What Is The Difference Between Permissive Joinder in Civil Procedure?

Permissive joinder allows multiple parties to join in a single lawsuit when their claims share a common question of law or fact. The primary difference from mandatory joinder is that permissive joinder is not required for the resolution of the case.

Permissive joinder, governed primarily by Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permits multiple parties to join together in one action if they assert claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and present common questions of law or fact. This mechanism enhances judicial efficiency and reduces the chance of conflicting judgments by consolidating related claims into a single lawsuit.

The key distinction between permissive joinder and mandatory joinder lies in the necessity of party inclusion. Mandatory joinder, found under Rule 19, requires the presence of certain parties in a suit if their absence would prevent the court from affording complete relief or would expose an existing party to the risk of multiple liabilities. By contrast, parties permitted under Rule 20 may choose to join a lawsuit but are not required to do so.

For plaintiffs, permissive joinder creates opportunities to have claims adjudicated simultaneously, which can be particularly advantageous when the parties' interests are interconnected. For defenses raised against one party in a permissive joinder context, defendants must ensure that such defenses are careful to not affect the adjudication of the joined parties' claims. The court retains discretion to sever claims if doing so serves the interests of justice or efficiency.

In practice, courts will consider fairness and judicial economy in allowing joinder, often leading to case precedents that refine the application of Rule 20. While permissive joinder facilitates grouping of claims, courts will also look at the possible complications arising from a multi-party scenario, including trial length and the potential for jury confusion. Thus, although joinder can seem advantageous, practitioners must weigh the benefits against potential disruptions in proceedings.

• 1Mosley v. General Motors Corp. (1971) - established the broad interpretation of commonality in permissive joinder.
• 2Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. (1968) - reiterated the need for common questions of law or fact.
• 3Hammond v. Barbourville Housing Authority (2014) - applied and clarified the principles surrounding permissive joinder and discretion of courts.
• 4Baker v. Cuyahoga County (2009) - highlighted challenges and court responses in multi-party litigation.

• what-is-mandatory-joinder-in-civil-procedure
• how-to-apply-rule-20-in-permissive-joinder
• understanding-requirements-of-joinder