Legal Definitions - pretensive joinder

Pretensive joinder occurs when a party is included in a lawsuit without a genuine legal basis for doing so, typically to gain a strategic advantage. The inclusion of this party is not based on a legitimate claim against them but rather on a "pretense" or a feigned reason. Courts often scrutinize such inclusions, especially when they appear to manipulate jurisdictional rules (like preventing a case from being moved to federal court) or venue rules (the geographic location where a case is heard).

If a court determines that a party has been pretensively joined, that party may be dismissed from the lawsuit, and the case might then proceed in the court or location the plaintiff was trying to avoid.

• Example 1: Manipulating Federal Diversity Jurisdiction

  Imagine a plaintiff living in California wants to sue a large technology company incorporated in Delaware, with its main operations in Texas. This situation typically allows the Delaware company to "remove" the case from California state court to federal court, based on "diversity of citizenship" (meaning the plaintiff and all defendants are from different states). To prevent this, the California plaintiff also names a low-level customer service representative, who also lives in California and works for the tech company, as a defendant. The plaintiff alleges a very minor, questionable claim against this representative.

  How it illustrates pretensive joinder: The plaintiff's primary target is the Delaware tech company. By adding the California-based customer service representative, the plaintiff attempts to destroy the "diversity of citizenship" that would otherwise allow the case to be moved to federal court. If the court finds that the claim against the customer service representative is baseless and merely a "pretense" to keep the case in California state court, the representative would be dismissed, and the tech company could then successfully remove the case to federal court.

• Example 2: Influencing Venue (Geographic Location of Trial)

  Consider a plaintiff who lives in a small, rural county and sues a national trucking company for an accident that occurred on a highway far from the rural county. The trucking company would prefer the case be heard in a more central, urban county where its operations are based and where more potential jurors might be familiar with large commercial vehicles. To ensure the case stays in the rural county, the plaintiff also names a local independent mechanic who performed a routine oil change on the plaintiff's car a month before the accident, alleging the mechanic somehow contributed to the accident, despite no clear evidence linking the oil change to the collision.

  How it illustrates pretensive joinder: The plaintiff's real target is the trucking company. By adding the local mechanic, the plaintiff tries to argue that the rural county is the proper "venue" (the geographic location for the trial) because a local defendant resides there. If the court determines the claim against the mechanic is without merit and was only made to keep the case in the rural county, the mechanic would be dismissed, and the trucking company might then successfully move the case to a different, more appropriate venue.