The Addams family ran "Addams' Fun Stuff" a specialty store in the State of Mitchell. On October 1, 1991, Morticia Adams, entered into a contract to buy a large quantity of "eye of newt" from Transylvania Foods for delivery before October 31, 1991. The shipment was delayed until November 1, 1991. The Addams' were unable to sell the shipment before Halloween and the store sold out the shipment at a huge loss.
 

The discounted jars of "eye of newt" were sold both over the counter and through the Adams Family Super-Saver Catalogue that is mailed to some 5,000 "preferred customers". The newt proved to be poisonous and nearly all of the nearly 10,000 purchasers of the product became ill, some were lucky and died. One of the customers, Mack Beth, a resident of Scotland brought an action against Addams Fun Stuff in Federal District Court for the District of Mitchell.
 

A statute of the State of Mitchell reads as follows:
 

SECTION 501. SALE OF ADULTERATED FOODSTUFFS
 

SUB. 1. Definition: Sale of adulterated foodstuffs means the sale of a product intended for human consumption that is spoiled, unwholesome or unhealthy.
 

SUB. 2. Cause of action: A person has a cause of action for harm caused by the sale of adulterated foodstuffs.
 

SUB. 3. Treble Damages: The sale of foodstuffs that the seller knew, or had reason to know, were adulterated are subject to triple damages for fraud.
 

SUB. 4. Statute of Limitations: Actions under this section must be commenced within one year of sale, or within 6 months for actions brought under Sub. 3.
 

On November 15, 1991 the Beth v. Addams suit was filed with the clerk of court. The summons and complaint were served on defendant Addams On December 1, 1991. The complaint sought to recover medical expenses for Beth's illness and the cost of the "newt". The complaint alleged that--

    (1) "the, parties were diverse and that this action is brought under Mitchell Statute 506",

    (2) "defendant Addams sold "eye of newt" in violation of Stat. 506".

    (3) "plaintiff Beth demands the cost of the newt and reimbursement for all medical expenses incurred and an order prohibiting the sale of "newt" in Mitchell."
 

Addams attorney filed a general denial on December 20, 1991 and the case sat dormant for several months. On October 31, 1992, Addams asks you to take over her case, she believes that Transylvania is liable to her for any damages that she might owe to Beth. Transylvania is not diverse from Beth.
 

    1. What Rule 12 motion(s) would you file on her behalf? Why?

    2. Assuming the motion(s) are denied. How could Addams bring Transylvania into the case?

    3. Assuming Addams is successful in bringing Transylvania into the case (Question 2) based on Addams possible liability to Beth. May Addams amend its pleadings to add a breach of contract action against Transylvania for late delivery of the "newt"") Why or Why not?

    4. May Transylvania bring an action for an unpaid bill for the "newts" against Addams in the same lawsuit? Why or Why not?

    5. Does it matter to you, as Addams lawyer, whether Transylvania calls the debt claim a cross-claim or a counter-claim? Why or Why not?
 

Addams is concerned that she will be sued for damages by thousands of customers who may have consumed the "newt". She is concerned about having to litigate thousands of claims. She believes she has a valid defense because she contends that "newt" is not intended for human consumption and is not a "foodstuff." She is so certain she is correct that she offers to place-all of her substantial fortune into a trust to be divided up among claimants, if she loses. She has no other assets from which to pay claims.
 

    6. May Addams use her asset trust as a means to get all the possible claims resolved? Why or Why not?

    7. What initial showing must Addams make to use another method of avoiding the problem of multiple litigation and conflicting judgments against her?

    8. Does the fact that some potential plaintiffs are known to Addams, and some are not, have an impact of which particular method she employees. Why or Why not?

    9. Based on the information you received from Addams, do you have a reason for asking leave of court to file an amended answer on Addams behalf. Why or why not?

    10. Is it likely that the court will grant the request for leave to amend? Why or Why not?
 

On December 16, 1992, while the above mentioned issues (6 through 10) were pending before the court, the child of one of the catalogue customers became aware of the lawsuit and sought to enter the case as a plaintiff on behalf of her deceased parent, who died after consuming the "newt". She sought treble-damages under 506(3) alleging that Addams "knew or should have known" that "newt" is inherently poisonous.
 

    11. What procedural mechanism will she use to enter the case and what is the likely outcome?

    12. Assuming child is allowed to enter the case will Addams prevail on a motion to dismiss the 506(3) claim as barred by the statute of limitations. Why or why not?