§18.6 Analysis

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§18.6ANALYSIS

CR 18(a) addresses joinder of claims while CR 18(b) addresses joinder of remedies. Each section of the rule is analyzed below. As Washington case law interpreting CR 18 is relatively sparse, and CR 18 closely parallels the federal rule, the analysis below discusses federal decisions as well as Washington state authority.

(1)Joinder of claims

CR 18(a) allows a broad scope of claims to be joined at the pleading stage. As many claims may be joined in one action as the parties desire. The claims need not arise from the same transaction or occurrence, involve common questions of fact or law, or in any way relate to each other. See Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 58 Wn.2d 659, 364 P.2d 804 (1961). When there are multiple defendants, CR 18 permits adding a claim that relates to only one of them. Kaminsky v. Abrams, 41 F.R.D. 168 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). The joined claims may arise in any procedural manner: they may be original claims, counterclaims, cross claims, or third-party claims.

CR 18 expressly permits a party to assert claims in the alternative, allowing a party to join inconsistent claims at the pleading stage and elect remedies and theories later. A party may join claims for which there is a right to a jury trial with claims that cannot be submitted to a jury. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S. Ct. 894, 8 L. Ed. 2d 44 (1962).

Because CR 18 is only a rule of pleading, parties cannot improperly join claims. In fact, the court has no discretion to reject a party's joinder of a claim within CR 18's broad parameters. Atl. Lumber Corp. v. S. Pac. Co., 2 F.R.D. 313 (D. Or. 1941). Other rules, however, grant the court discretion to determine how trial of the joined claims will proceed. CR 21 permits the severance of claims, and CR 42(b) permits separate trials of claims or issues to promote convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to promote expedition and economy.

CR 18(a) does not require a party to join its claims in a single action. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Kawachi, 91 Wn.2d 223, 226, 588 P.2d 725 (1978). However, other rules or doctrines may cause a party to lose the ability to subsequently bring a claim if it fails to join the claim in the first action. The doctrine of res judicata, for example, may prevent a later action when the claims involve the same subject matter, cause of action, and parties. Hadley v. Cowan, 60 Wn.App. 433,439-43,804 P.2d 1271 (1991). If a claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that...