What impact can a plaintiff’s choice of joinder have on a case?

A plaintiff's choice of joinder can significantly impact the complexity of a case. When multiple parties or claims are joined in a single action, it can lead to intricate legal and factual issues that must be addressed simultaneously. This can create additional layers of complexity, as the court will have to navigate the relationships between the joined parties, their respective claims, and any defenses that may arise.

Joinder can bring together various claims that may not be directly related, leading to a situation where the court has to consider how different legal standards apply to each claim, how evidence may overlap, and how different parties may affect each other’s outcomes. Consequently, instead of streamlining the process, joining multiple claims can complicate discovery, motion practice, and trial presentations, making it more challenging for both the parties and the judge to manage the case efficiently.

In contrast, other choices might suggest benefits that do not necessarily align with the reality of case management in the context of joinder. For example, reducing legal costs or decreasing the number of parties involved may not hold true if the addition of parties or claims only serves to create more significant legal hurdles. Similarly, while joinder could potentially simplify the trial process in some contexts, that is not universally the case and often depends on