Soares v. Lorono et al

Filing 306

Order by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 276 Motion for Joinder. In response to defendants request for clarification, the Court will consider Soaress 297 motion in limine. Defendants may but are not required to file a response to this motion by November 19, 2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAUL F. SOARES,

Case No. 12-cv-05979-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING SOARES'S MOTION
FOR JOINDER

9
10

JEFFREY LORONO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 276, 297

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff Paul F. Soares moves for joinder of defense counsel, David Hollingsworth, as a

13

party in the adversary proceeding in this consolidated case. Because Hollingsworth is not a

14

necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, I DENY Soares’s motion. In addition, I

15

address the defendants’ request for clarification regarding Soares’s motion in limine filed on

16

November 5, 2014.

17

Plaintiff Paul F. Soares filed a motion for joinder of Hollingsworth pursuant to Federal

18

Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 21, and to disqualify him as counsel in this matter. Mot. Joinder

19

at 1 (Dkt. No. 276). According to Soares, Hollingsworth is an interested party because he is owed

20

attorney’s fees under the settlement agreement at issue in this action. Soares contends that without

21

joinder “the SVR Defendants have no standing and this case must be dismissed as to those parties

22

claims and defenses.” Id. at 2.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 provides that a person must be joined as a party if:
(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief
among existing parties; or
(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action
and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence
may:
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability
to protect the interest; or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of
incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent

obligations because of the interest.

1

FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)(1). A court may add or drop a party on its own or on motion. FED R. CIV. P.
2
21.
3
Although Soares correctly identifies the legal standard for joinder, he does not establish
4
5

how the standard is met in this case. Mot. Joinder at 1-4. Hollingsworth’s interest in this action
arises from the award of attorney’s fees in the settlement agreement between SVR and Soares

6
underlying this cause of action. This Court may adequately address these issues and the propriety
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

of attorney’s fees without joining Hollingsworth as a party to the adversary proceeding.1 In
resolving the claims of the current defendants, it is possible to “accord complete relief” to all
parties without impairing any interest Hollingsworth has in attorney’s fees. See FED. R. CIV. P.
19(a)(1)(A)-(B). Moreover, Soares’s argument that the SVR defendants lack standing is incorrect,
because defendants allege that Soares owes money to SVR under the settlement agreement.2 See
Def.’s Pretrial Statement at 14 (Dkt No. 292). Therefore I DENY Soares’s motion for joinder.

13

In response to defendants’ request for clarification, I will consider Soares’s motion in

14
limine filed on November 5, 2014. See Dkt. No. 297 at 2. Defendants may but are not required to
15
file a response to this motion by November 19, 2014.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated: November 17, 2014
18
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Because I DENY Soares’s motion for joinder, defendants should not file any response to that
motion as it will be moot. See Dkt. No. 297 at 2.
2
The fact that funds owed may be attributable to attorney’s fees does not divest SVR, as a party to
the settlement agreement, of standing.
2