REV100995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12/14/04 TUE 11:57 FA3 15124001711 TDW standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and 20.5 Suffice it to say, however, it is the Barkers' position that while Lisa Barker may have been an appropriate candidate for joinder under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 or 20, the State of Colorado and Glen Stinson do not qualify for joinder under either Rule. Under all of these circumstances, the Barkers can only conclude that despite protestations to the contrary, BTU Empire is seeking to add the State of 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 governing mandatory joinder provides in pertinent part that: ... [a] person who is the subject of service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if: (1) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims au interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may (i) aS a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest. Fed. R, Civ, P. 20 governing permissive joinder provides in pertinent part that: ... [aJll persons ...may by joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising cut of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. .A. plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all of the relief demanded r~oo7