What is a common reason for a party to object to joinder?

The rationale behind objecting to joinder when the joiner is not relevant to the original claim is rooted in the principles of judicial efficiency and relevance. If a party is looking to join another party to a lawsuit, the court expects that the added claim or party will have some relation or impact on the original allegations. When the new party or claim is deemed irrelevant, it distracts from the central issues at hand and can lead to unnecessary complexity and confusion.

Relevance ensures that all parties and issues presented in court contribute meaningful information to the resolution of the primary dispute. Courts aim to keep the focus on the central matters while mitigating the risk of extraneous claims that do not facilitate a clear and efficient resolution of the case.

The other reasons, while they may also lead to objections, don't highlight the fundamental goal of relevance as prominently. Complications, standing issues, and conflicting interests are valid concerns, but the underlying principle for most objections to joinder ties back to how directly pertinent the joined party or claim is to the main case. Thus, relevance serves as a key criterion for evaluating the appropriateness of joinder.