Stanford v. Tennessee Valley Authority case brief summary

Stanford v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1955)

o    Permissive joinder case regarding fumes released into the air by multiple companies and potentially causing harm.

o    Why did they really want to join the defendants?

·         Prevent Empty chair defense: If they can only sue one defendant, the defendant is going to point the finger at the other defendant who is not a participant in the trial.

·         By the same token, the defendants would want this case severed in order to be able to take advantage of this defense

o    Court finds that there is misjoinder b/c these events did not flow from the same transactions or occurrences.

·         The plants were separately owned and operated, and different distances from the P

·         They are not joint tortfeasors acting in concert.

·         Rule 20 joinder was impermissible  à No, commonality. Both doing their own thing.

·         Under Rule 21, misjoinder is not grounds for dismissal; thus, the claims can be severed.

·         However, under Rule 42, the Court can consolidate actions if they involve “common questions of law or fact”

·         Here, the judge found that Rule 42 was satisfied and ordered a joint trial although the claims were severed

·         Rationale: there was a mixed question of law and fact common to both Defs.

·         Also, it was conceivable that other issues, common to both parties, may arise after the answers are filed, or after a further development of the case

·         Joint trial also had many advantages in that it saved trial time, and allowed the use of the same witnesses and evidence to determine culpability

·         Stanford Discussion

o    Prof: Real reason why the Court allowed a joint trial is because such an order will preserve to each defendant the procedural advantages of a separate trial, including preemptory challenges of jurors

o    Note the inherent issue with this case b/c there wasn’t an actual consolidation

·         The Court used Rule 42 ONLY to order a joint trial. Thus, P has one trial but two separate Ds.

·         Normally under Rule 42, a real consolidation would mean discovery is also shared. Here, the discovery of the parties will be separate and each D would not be privy to the discovery that the P’s counsel gleaned from the other D