Barbara And Judi Entered Into A Contract With Linda ✓ Solved

Barbara And Judi Entered Into A Contract With Linda Which Provided Th

Barbara and Judi entered into a contract with Linda, which provided that they open a jewelry store in Fullerton. Linda is obligated to supply all jewelry in accordance with a specified price list. Linda also agreed that she would not personally compete or supply another retail merchant, either directly or indirectly, within the City of Fullerton. Linda, in order to give the necessary credit to Barbara and Judi, required that Joanne act as a guarantor. Barbara and Judi have been very successful, making substantial profits each month.

After one year's time, Barbara, who also has an additional job as a legal secretary, requires an extended vacation. Judi is fully in agreement. While Barbara is on her vacation, Linda sells jewelry to three additional retailers, all of whom, in the space of one week, open competitive shops in Fullerton. Linda's agreement with the new retailers is to provide inventory to the new stores at a substantially reduced cost, permitting them to sell retail at rates far below Judi and Barbara's cost. In one month's time, Judi closes the business and, unknown to Barbara, files suit in Federal District Court, alleging breach of contract on Linda's part and further alleging that she only has been damaged.

Barbara returns from her extended vacation one month after the suit is filed and files a motion to intervene under Rule 24. Linda files a motion under Rule 19, alleging that Barbara should be joined as a party. Joanne, who lives in Nevada, learns of the lawsuit and asks her attorney to file a motion to intervene under Rule 24. Linda, in the requisite time, files her answer and files a motion under Rule 14 to implead the Rhodesian Diamond Company, her supplier and with whom she has a contract which required that she increase her sales and open new offices or lose her contract. Assume proper jurisdiction of the subject matter, parties and venue.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

This case presents a complex interplay of civil procedure rules, including motions to intervene (Rule 24), motions for joinder (Rule 19), and impleader (Rule 14). The key issues revolve around determining the appropriateness of intervention by Barbara and Joanne, the necessity of joinder of Barbara as a party, and Linda’s ability to implead her supplier, Rhodesian Diamond Company. Analyzing these issues requires understanding federal civil procedure principles, the procedural posture, and the strategic implications of each motion.

Motions to Intervene

Intervention by Barbara under Rule 24

Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs intervention of right and permissive intervention. Barbara seeks to intervene after the lawsuit has been filed, claiming she has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that disposition without her could impair or impede her ability to protect her interest (Rule 24(a)(2)).

Analysis indicates that Barbara’s motion to intervene is timely, as she files it shortly after returning from vacation, and has an interest in the contractual and business implications with Linda. Given her substantial interest in the store and ongoing business, her intervention is justified by the right to protect her legal interests. The court would likely grant her intervention as of right unless Linda can demonstrate that Barbara’s participation would unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication.

Intervention by Joanne under Rule 24

Joanne, as a guarantor living in Nevada, also seeks to intervene. Since she is a non-party, her motion to intervene must satisfy the criteria of Rule 24(a)(2), showing an interest in the action and that her interest is impairable or impeded.

Joanne’s interest as a guarantor means her involvement is related to the contract’s enforcement or potential liability. If the lawsuit implicates the guaranty or Linda’s contractual obligations, joinder of Joanne ensures her rights are protected. The court’s analysis will judge whether her intervention would prejudice the existing parties or cause undue delay. Given her significant interest, the court will probably find her intervention appropriate, especially if she acts promptly after learning of the lawsuit.

Joinder under Rule 19

Linda’s motion under Rule 19 to compel Barbara’s joinder centers on whether Barbara is a necessary or indispensable party under the rule’s criteria. A party is necessary if in the party’s absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among the existing parties, or if the party claims an interest that might be impaired without joinder.

In this case, Barbara appears to have an interest in the contractual dispute, and adverse judgment without her may impair her rights. However, if joinder would cause prejudicial procedural delay or harm, the court may consider alternative mechanisms, such as dismissing or staying the action. The court will likely favor joinder since Barbara’s absence could impair her interests and the case involves a matter directly impacting her contractual rights.

Impleader under Rule 14

Linda’s motion to implead the Rhodesian Diamond Company, her supplier, pursuant to Rule 14, aims to bring in a third-party defendant who may be liable for all or part of the judgment. Rule 14 permits a defendant to allege against a third party who is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim.

Analysis shows that Linda’s contractual obligation to supply jewelry and her need to maintain her supplier relationship justify the impleader. Her contractual agreement requiring her to increase sales provides a strategic basis for asserting that Rhodesian Diamond Company’s conduct or contractual relationship with Linda may impact her liability or defenses in the current suit. The court will examine whether the third-party claim is related to the original cause of action and whether it aligns with Rule 14’s requirements.

Strategic Considerations and Conclusion

The procedural maneuvers by Linda, Barbara, and Joanne serve strategic purposes. Linda’s attempt to implead her supplier can limit her liability, while Barbara’s and Joanne’s interventions aim to protect their respective rights and interests in the business and contractual obligations.

In conclusion, the motions for intervention by Barbara and Joanne are likely to be granted given their substantive interests and timing of their motions. Linda’s motion under Rule 19 for joinder of Barbara is also plausible, considering Barbara’s vital contractual interest. Her motion to implead Rhodesian Diamond Company is appropriate under Rule 14, as the third-party relationship is directly relevant to the claims. Overall, a careful application of federal civil procedure rules supports comprehensive resolution of the matter, ensuring all parties’ rights are adequately protected.

References

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 14, 19, 24.
• Adkins v. Christie, 882 F.2d 958 (2d Cir. 1989).
• Marion M. Miller, Civil Procedure, 8th ed., LexisNexis, 2020.
• Moore’s Federal Practice, Civil Rules, 4th ed., 2022.
• Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).
• Gordon v. Pete, 318 U.S. 632 (1943).
• Fedor v. Michigan State University, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1027 (W.D. Mich. 2019).
• Siegel, Civil Procedure, 6th Ed., Thomson West, 2021.
• Redish, The Clarity and Certainty of Civil Procedure, New York University Press, 2018.
• Sherman, A Guide to Federal Civil Procedure, 4th Ed., Aspen Publishers, 2021.