Three Point Capital LLC v. Mark Hulme et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Three Point Capital TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by Friday, August 22, 2014, why it has not joined The Jobs Film and The Five Star Institute in the Hulme action, which is the low-number case. No hearing will be held; Plaintiff shall respond in writing. Alternatively, the Court GRANTS Three Point Capital leave to amend its Hulme Complaint to name The Jobs Film and The Five Star Institute as defendants in that actio n. Three Point Capital shall thenvoluntarily dismiss the high-number action.The Court will discharge this Order upon the timely receipt of a written response or amendment of the Hulme Complaint and dismissal of the high-number action. Failure to timely respond will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

THREE POINT CAPITAL LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
MARK HULME; DOES 1–10, inclusive,
Defendants.

15
16

THREE POINT CAPITAL LLC,

Case № 2:14-cv-06137-ODW(SSx)

Plaintiff,

17
18

Case № 2:14-cv-06133-ODW(SSx)-**

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.

19

THE JOBS FILM, LCC; THE FIVE

FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY

20

STAR INSTITUTE, LLC; DOES 1–10,

PARTIES

21

inclusive,

22

Defendants.

23

On August 5, 2014, Plaintiff Three Point Capital, LLC filed suit against

24

Defendants The Jobs Film, LLC and The Five Star Institute, LLC. Three Point

25

Capital alleges that The Jobs Film and The Five Star Institute failed to repay a

26

$2,650,000 in funds that Three Point Capital had loaned them.

27

On the same day, Three Point Capital filed a separate action in the Central

28

District of California against Mark Hulme. Three Point Capital alleges that Hulme

1

guaranteed the loan and is thereby also liable for the $2,650,000 past-due amount.

2

The high-number action has since been reassigned before this Court.

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) sets forth “necessary” parties, that is,

4

those parties who “must be joined” if they will not deprive the court of subject-matter

5

jurisdiction. A party is necessary if, among others, disposing of the action in that

6

party’s absence may “as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to

7

protect the interest; or . . . leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of

8

incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the

9

interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B). If a necessary party has not been joined, the

10

court “must order that the person be made a party.” Id. (a)(2).

11

It is possible that there could be inconsistent findings on liability between the

12

two actions with respect to the $2,650,000 loan, i.e., that could subject a defendant in

13

one action to “inconsistent obligations” vis-à-vis the other action. That would make

14

all defendants “necessary” parties in the other action. Moreover, so long as none of

15

the limited-liability companies have members that are California citizens, Three Point

16

Capital may properly join them in one action. Otherwise, the Court must determine

17

whether The Jobs Film and The Five Star Institute are indispensable parties.

18

The Court accordingly ORDERS Three Point Capital TO SHOW CAUSE in

19

writing by Friday, August 22, 2014, why it has not joined The Jobs Film and The Five

20

Star Institute in the Hulme action, which is the low-number case. No hearing will be

21

held; Plaintiff shall respond in writing. Alternatively, the Court GRANTS Three

22

Point Capital leave to amend its Hulme Complaint to name The Jobs Film and The

23

Five Star Institute as defendants in that action.

24

voluntarily dismiss the high-number action.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

Three Point Capital shall then

1

The Court will discharge this Order upon the timely receipt of a written

2

response or amendment of the Hulme Complaint and dismissal of the high-number

3

action. Failure to timely respond will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

August 11, 2014

7
8
9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3