Randall Wallis v. CitiMortgage, Inc., a New York Corporation et al

Filing 33

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING RE: HELENE WALLIS. Plaintiff must submit additional briefing by 4/15/2016. Defendant may respond by 4/22/2016. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 4/6/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
RANDALL WALLIS,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No.15-cv-05824 NC
ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL
BRIEFING RE: HELENE WALLIS

v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., A NEW
YORK CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

In this mortgage foreclosure case, Randall Wallis sues Citi Mortgage, seeking to

17

stop the foreclosure of his house and to quiet title to the property. However, Randall

18

Wallis’ ex-wife, Helene Wallis was a co-borrower on the underlying mortgage loan. Citi

19

Mortgage moves to dismiss the complaint, and argues in part that Helene Wallis is a

20

necessary party in this litigation. Randall Wallis has attached his divorce decree to the

21

complaint, which provides that Helene will be held harmless from the debts on the

22

property. However, Citi Mortgage is not a party to this divorce decree.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) provides,
A person who is subject to service of process and whose
joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction
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
Case No.15-cv-05824 NC

1
2

double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because
of the interest.
The Ninth Circuit frames the indispensable party inquiry into a three part analysis:

3

(1) whether a nonparty should be joined under Rule 19(a); (2) if so, whether it is feasible to

4

order that the absentee be joined; and (3) if joinder is not feasible, whether the case can

5

proceed without the absentee. If not, dismissal of the case is proper. E.E.O.C. v. Peabody

6

W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 2005); Trinh v. Citibank, NA, No. 12-cv-03902

7

EJD, 2012 WL 6574860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2012).

8

As to the first element, Helene Wallis was a co-borrower on the loan, has an interest
in the title of the property, and could bring many of the same claims as Randall Wallis

10

against Citi Mortgage. The divorce decree states that Helene should be held “harmless

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

from the mortgage debt on the property.” This decree does not appear to change the nature

12

of the relationship between Helene Wallis and Citi Mortgage, but rather it changes the

13

nature of the relationship between Randall Wallis and Helene Wallis as to the debt on the

14

property upon judgment. The Court concludes that Helene Wallis should be joined under

15

Rule 19(a). Helene Wallis claims an interest in the property that she may be interested in

16

protecting, and without her joinder, Citi Mortgage may be subject to a substantial risk of

17

incurring double inconsistent obligations.

18

Second, the Court must consider whether it is feasible to order Helene Wallis to join

19

the litigation. Joinder is not feasible “when venue is improper, when the absentee is not

20

subject to personal jurisdiction, and when joinder would destroy subject matter

21

jurisdiction.” E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 2005). The

22

parties did not address this inquiry in their motion to dismiss briefing.

23

Thus, the Court ORDERS the parties to submit additional briefing as to whether it

24

is feasible to order Helene Wallis to join the litigation. Plaintiff must submit additional

25

briefing by April 15, 2016. Defendant may respond by April 22, 2016.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2016

28
Case No. 15-cv-05824 NC

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge
2