§20.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§20.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

This section identifies Washington, federal, and other authorities addressing permissive joinder issues.

(1)Washington

The modern permissive joinder rule serves to free litigants and the courts from the burden of multiple trials caused by the more restrictive joinder rules of common-law and code pleading. Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 58 Wn.2d 659, 364 P.2d 804 (1961).

The court adopted CR20's predecessor, RPPP 20(a), as an initial effort to relieve the burden of multiple trials occasioned by restrictive joinder rules. Williams v. Maslan, 192 Wash. 616, 619-21, 74 P.2d 217 (1937).

The modern permissive joinder rule promotes convenience and efficiency in resolving claims by allowing all interested persons to participate in one suit. Wells v.Aetna Ins. Co., 60 Wn.2d 880, 882, 376 P.2d 644 (1962).

By avoiding a multiplicity of suits under the joinder rules, parties can also avoid repetitive discovery and testimony. Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. Kitsap Cnty. Sewer Dist. No. 6,52 Wn.2d 776,329 P.2d 189 (1958).

Courts liberally construe CR 20 to fulfill its purposes of trial convenience and avoidance of multiple suits. Wells, 60 Wn.2d at 882.

Joinder of an additional defendant preserved that defendant's right to file a counterclaim despite expiration of the statute of limitations during the action. J.R. Simplot Co. v. Vogt, 93 Wn.2d 122, 605 P.2d 1267 (1980).

Six plaintiffs alleged that the defendants—a corporation and its two controlling shareholders—entered into separate sales contracts with each of them over a period of several years (a "series of transactions" under the joinder rules). The defendants sought to sever the claims into six separate actions. The court found a common question of fact as to whether the defendants had authorized the various salespersons' representations and warranties, as well as a common question of law as to whether the representations and warranties were fraudulent.

Therefore, the court allowed the six plaintiffs to pursue multiple claims against multiple defendants in a single action. Mangham v. Gold Seal Chinchillas, Inc., 69 Wn.2d 37, 416 P.2d 680 (1966).

Although plaintiffs have great freedomin deciding to join defendants and coplaintiffs, defendants have little, if any, right to force plaintiffs to join a permissive party. Jensen v. Arntzen, 67 Wn.2d 202, 207, 406 P.2d 954 (1965).

A concurrent tortfeasor who is sued for a joint tort cannot compel the plaintiff to sue the other tortfeasors. Brown v. Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1,21 Wn. App. 886, 586 P.2d 1207 (1978).

Once a defendant asserts a counterclaim or cross claim, it may use the joinder provisions of CR 20 to the same extent as plaintiffs. Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. First Seattle Dexter Horton Nat'l Bank, 162 Wash. 437, 444, 299 P. 359 (1931).

Plaintiff sued for injuries incurred when defendants' vehicle struck plaintiff's vehicle and for injuries incurred when codefendants' truck struck plaintiff's vehicle eight months later. Because there were two separate torts, and liability was several and not joint, plaintiff had the burden of proving the amount of damages attributable to each collision. Joinder of both sets of defendants was proper given the need to allocate damages between them. Smith v. Rodene, 69 Wn.2d 482, 418 P.2d 741 (1966).

Despite lack of joint liability or concurrent wrong, the original tortfeasor and the physician who later negligently treated the injured plaintiff were properly joined as defendants. DeNike v. Mowery, 69 Wn.2d 357, 418 P.2d 1010, amended, 422 P.2d 328 (1966); see also Adams, 58 Wn.2d 659.

Plaintiff was an owner of riparian land, and defendants were a city that was dumping sewage into a stream and a private slaughterhouse that was independently dumping its waste into the same stream. The claim against the city was based on an unconstitutional taking of property, whereas the claim against the slaughterhouse sounded in tort. Despite the diverse nature of the claims and parties, the court held that joinder of the city and the slaughterhouse was proper because a single suit would more efficiently and accurately determine the apportionment of several liability between the two defendants than would multiple suits. Snavelyv. City of'Goldendale, 10Wn.2d453,117 P.2d 221 (1941).

When a plaintiff sues an agent, an undisclosed principal is only a permissive party, and the court cannot dismiss the action for failure to join the principal. Jensen, 67 Wn.2d at 207. This is because the liability of an agent and the agent's previously undisclosed principal is joint and several. Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley, 110 Wn.2d 695, 706, 756 P.2d 717 (1988).

The court denied intervention by six individual bondholders because a bond trustee had represented their interests during the litigation. In these circumstances, RCW 7.24.110 does not apply if the nonjoined party has a "designated representative" (an agent) who adequately asserts the party's position in the declaratory judgment proceeding. Chem. Bank v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 102 Wn.2d 874, 691 P.2d 524 (1984), cert, denied, All U.S. 1075 (1985).

If the court can completely resolve a controversy without the presence of additional parties, then joinder lies within the sound discretion of the court. Williams v. Poulsbo Rural Tel.Ass'n, 87 Wn.2d 636, 644, 555 P.2d 1173 (1976), overruled on other grounds by Chem. Bank v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 102 Wn.2d 874, 691 P.2d 524 (1984); Wimberly v. Caravello, 136 Wn.App. 327, 334-35, 149 P.3d 403 (2006).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff bondholders' request to add as defendants directors and officers of corporations the identities of which had been readily discoverable earlier in the litigation. Failure to name the additional defendants in the original complaint resulted from "inexcusable neglect." The nonmoving parties were not required to show that adding parties would prejudice their defense because inexcusable neglect is, by itself, sufficient to deny joinder. Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn.2d 107, 174, 744 P.2d 1032 (1987), amended, 750 P.2d 254 (1988).

The traditional definition of what constitutes a "transaction or occurrence" or a series of transactions or occurrences is set forth in Williams, 192 Wash, at 620.

Plaintiff properly joined as defendants in a malicious prosecution action those persons who instigated the underlying criminal prosecution. Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wn.2d 882, 410 P.2d 606 (1966).

Two persons injured in one automobile accident may properly join as plaintiffs in a single suit. State ex rel. Shaffer v. Superior Court, 184 Wash. 316, 50 P.2d917 (1935); see also Koboski v. Cobb, 161 Wash. 574, 297 P. 771 (1931).

Multiple owners of separate mining claims were properly joined as plaintiffs in an action to quiet title when the defendant...