8/14/2019 Akely et al. v. Kinnicutt et al.

1/2

Case: Akely et al. v. Kinnicutt et al. (1924, NY) [App. 12-15]

Parties: Plaintiff - Akely (respondent)Defendant - Kinnicutt (appellant)

Procedural History:

Facts: 193 plaintiffs (investors) brought an action against D, who issued a

intentionally fraudulent prospectus that described the assets of their company,which induced people to buy stock at a much higher price than its actual value.The investors joined their causes of action in one action. D motioned the trialcourt to separate the actions into 193 separate claims. Trial court dismissed themotion, and D appeals.

Issue: Whether the 193 separate actions can be joined into one action. Yes.

Holding: Trial court dismissal affirmed. The 193 claims can be joined.

Reasoning: the 193 actions can be joined as a separate claim as long as:Each of the claims arose out of the same transaction or series of

transactions, so as to permit joinder under Civil Practice Act, 209.

It is not in violation of the US constitution (Art 1 & 2 - right to a jury trial) because preventing defendant from a right to a new jury for each cause ofaction, because so long as the right of jury trial is preserved, the details ofthe method of right to a jury trial is largely suject to legislative discretion.Further, the joinder of the investors' claims would not embarrass or delay thetrial of the action but instead, would facilitate it.

RULE:

Notes

All 193 Ps, have joined together on one complaint to allege D cheated them. These are not 193 separate lawsuits, but Ps have all suffered the same injury.

Why would P prefer to set it up all together, rather than individually?Efficiency (cheaper - someone has to write all the claims, and court fees,

and easier for judicial system)More leverage to try to force a settlement

partly b/c more press Partly b/c more likely to get a settlement b/c as a matter of proof,

193 ppl more persuasive to jury rather than just 1Knowing that this is likely to be the effect on the jury, D

more likely to settle As counsel for D, will argue that P cant do this (b/c of the effect on thejury),

You would say "the 193 Ps are not claiming damages from the same transaction or occurrence were defrauded, if at all, in a diff time and place for

each"There has to be some trade-off btwn efficiency and individual damages

The reality is that both sides are rightCould be one transaction or 193 transactions.Plausible argument of whether the questions of fact are common to all 193

Ps. So, as a judge rather than saying it is same transaction, you step back andthink about the purpose of why we're here - public policy - get the efficiencybenefits of trying the claims together. On the other hand, the dangers of spill-over effects, and that individual justice will not be done if only 5 of the 193were actually defrauded.

8/14/2019 Akely et al. v. Kinnicutt et al.

2/2

So court of appeals say - yes, there are some questions of law in common, and some not.

One fraudulent scheme to defraud the public, and then individualtransactions

So, court looks at how this balances out, and have to conclude that overwhelming amount of judicial time will go to same questions, but there is aduty to maintain diligence to avoid the prejudice.

Can go on same complaint, and then if necessary at a later point,

separate them.What is court trying to do with this rule - getting the efficiency, etc.Benefits of efficiency outweigh dangers of prejudice.