So I've been wondering why people never seem to talk about the "jointly, severally, or in the alternative" part of FRCP 20(a)(2) in #ScheduleA cases.
Could the reason be that, in this oft-cited decision, Judge Chang just...left it out?
Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020).
This observation brought to you by this brief: https://www.scribd.com/document/686252315/Hong-Kong-Xingtai-v-Schedule-A-Memo-re-Joinder
Note that, like FRCP 20, ยง 299 also requires that the claim be "asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/299
Back to the Estee Lauder case. I see that GBC filed a document entitled "Plaintiffs Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd., Make-Up Art Cosmetics Inc. Second Memorandum Establishing Joinder is Proper," ECF 38.
I wanted to know if GBC read the "jointly, severally, or in the alternative" point out or if the judge did it on his own.
But that documents still under seal, even though the case was closed over three years ago.
Sarah Fackrell