Webster et al v. Sutton et al

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING defendants Alexander and Damian Sutton's 12 MOTION for Joinder of L.S., as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/18/14. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

GLENN WEBSTER and
TONGANITA WEBSTER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
ALEXANDER SUTTON and
DAMIAN SUTTON,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13cv715-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs
brought

this

Glenn

and

lawsuit

in

Tonganita
state

Webster

court,

initially

alleging

that

defendant Alexander Sutton, while driving a car owned by
defendant Damian Sutton, rear-ended them on Interstate
Highway I-85.

The Suttons removed this case from state to

federal court under diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction,
28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Subsequently, Ms. Webster’s minor son,

L.S., through his mother brought a separate state-court

lawsuit

for

compensation

for

the

injuries

that

L.S.

suffered in the same car crash.
This federal lawsuit is now before the court on the
Suttons’ motion to join L.S. as a plaintiff under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 20(a).

A hearing was held on the motion on

February 10, 2014.

Rule 20(a) states: “Persons may join

in one action as plaintiffs if” certain prerequisites are
met.

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

20(a)(1).

This

rule

empowers

plaintiffs to choose to bring litigation together or
separately.
The Suttons argue that the rule leaves the question of
whether to add a plaintiff to the court’s discretion.
Such an interpretation mangles the plain text of the rule,
and,

as

the

Suttons’

counsel

pointed

out

during

a

telephone conference with the court, there is no authority
for their interpretation.

Rather, one commentator has

stated:
“The permissive party joinder rule gives
plaintiff great discretion to determine
the structure of litigation. Although
defendants may be able to alter the
2

plaintiff’s structure by impleading
third-party defendants or by moving for
the joinder of absentees who satisfy
Rule 19, defendants have no right to
insist that plaintiff join all persons
who might be joined under permissive
party joinder requirements.”
4

James

Wm.

Moore

et

al.,

Moore’s

Federal

Practice

§ 20.02[2][b][I] (3d ed. 2013) (internal references and
citations removed).
Neither is it relevant that L.S.’s state-court suit
was brought through his mother, who is a plaintiff in
this

federal

case,

or

that

the

same

attorney

is

representing L.S.’s interests in the state-court lawsuit
and Ms. Webster’s in this one.
damages for his own injuries.
by

another

parent

or

L.S.’s lawsuit seeks

It could have been brought

guardian,

and

it

is

of

no

consequence that Ms. Webster was the one who brought it.
* * *
For the reasons listed above, it is the ORDERED that
defendants Alexander Sutton and Damian Sutton’s motion
for joinder of L.S. (Doc. No. 12) is denied.
DONE, this the 18th day of February, 2014.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4