REV100995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

they own a different type of interest than the Bazkers, additional pleading was required as to Mr. Stinson and the State. Thus, the Amended Complaint states that Mr. Stinson and the State each have a leasehold interest in the Property (¶¶21-23), that Empire is seeking to establish that it has rights in the Property (¶30) that aze superior to the rights of Mr. Stinson and the State (¶¶39,40), and that Empire is entitled to injunctive relief against Mr. Stinson and the State (Amended Complaint, prayer for relief, ¶ B). The Amended Complaint, therefore, not only adds Mr. Stinson and the State as parties, but pleads for relief against them-a declazation that Empire's right to perform legally required reclamation is senior to [heir leasehold interests, and injunctive relief preventing Mr. Stinson and the State from interfering with Empire's rights. Unlike Ms. Bazker, Mr. Stinson and the State could not simply be `joined" in this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. Mr. Stinson's interest as a lessee of the Property is different than that of the Bazkers, and simply adding him as a defendant would not have been sufficient because Empire needed to add specific allegations against Mr. Stinson and his interest (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 21, 23, 39, 40). Similazly, the State's interest as a lessee of the Property is different than that of the Barkers, and simply adding the State as a defendant would not have been sufficient because Empire needed to add specific allegations against the State and its interest (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 22, 23, 39, 40). Empire thus needed to add specific allegations against Mr. Stinson and the State (and their respective interests as lessees of the Property), requiring amendment of the Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In addition, however, the State could not have simply been joined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 because the State is not a party "whose joinder will not deprive the court of