FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. AMOS et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 29 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 02/08/2017. (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, as Receiver for
GulfSouth Private Bank,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-284 (CDL)

WILLIAM L. AMOS, JENNIFER C.
*
AMOS, and WLA INVESTMENTS INC.,
*
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC-R”), as
receiver
William
interest

for
L.
in

GulfSouth

Amos

Private

fraudulently

Paladin

Beach

Defendant Jennifer C. Amos.

Bank,

alleges

that

Defendant

transferred

his

35%

membership

Investments,

LLC

to

his

wife,

According to FDIC-R, Mrs. Amos now

owns 70% of the interest in Paladin, though Mr. Amos continues
to manage Paladin.

FDIC-R also asserts that WLA Investments

Inc. holds a mortgage encumbering Paladin’s ten acres of real
property in Biloxi, Mississippi.

FDIC-R “seeks to attach and

levy on the mortgage to help satisfy the over $3.5 million owed
by” Mr. Amos to FDIC-R.
ECF No. 30.
action.

Pl.’s Resp. to Amos Mot. to Dismiss 2,

FDIC-R did not name Paladin as a Defendant in this

The Amoses contend that this action must be dismissed

because Paladin was not joined.

Joinder of parties is governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 19.
a

party”

existing

if

Under that rule, a third party “must be joined as
“the

parties”

court
in

cannot

that

accord

party’s

complete

absence

or

relief
if

the

among
party

“claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is
so

situated

absence

that

may:

disposing
impair

(i)

of

impede

or

the

action
the

in

the

[party’s]

[party’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.”
P.

19(a)(1).

If

the

absent

party

is

“required”

Fed. R. Civ.
under

Rule

19(a)(1) and joinder is feasible, then the Court “must order
that the person be made a party.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2).

It

is only when a required party “cannot be joined” that the Court
“must

determine

whether,

in

equity

and

good

conscience,

the

action should proceed among the existing parties or should be
dismissed.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b).

Here, the Amoses do not contend that Paladin cannot be
joined for some reason, such as lack of personal jurisdiction or
improper venue.
Also,

Paladin

FDIC-R asserts that Paladin is a Georgia LLC.
consented

to

a

preliminary

injunction

in

this

action under which Paladin agreed to be enjoined from taking
several actions with regard to certain real property in Biloxi,
Mississippi.

Consent Order Granting Prelim. Inj. 1 & n.1, 5-6,

2

ECF No. 17.

Thus, it appears that joinder is feasible.

The

only remaining question is whether Paladin is a required party
such that the Court must order that Paladin be made a party.
The Amoses did not point to any reason why the Court cannot
accord complete relief among the parties in Paladin’s absence.
The

Amoses

do

argue

that

this

action

may

interests in the real property in Mississippi.

affect

Paladin’s

But FDIC-R does

not seek an adjudication of whether Paladin owns title to the
real

property

in

Mississippi.

Rather,

FDIC-R

asserts

that

Paladin will continue to hold the real property, subject to any
liens.
Amos

FDIC-R seeks an adjudication regarding (1) whether Mr.

fraudulently

Paladin

to

Mrs.

transferred
Amos

and

his

(2)

35%

membership

whether

Mr.

interest

Amos’s

in

property

includes the mortgage that encumbers Paladin’s real property in
Mississippi.
and

accord

The Court should be able to answer these questions
complete

relief

among

the

parties

in

Paladin’s

absence.
The Amoses also did not point to any reason why disposing
of

this

action

in

Paladin’s

absence

would

impair

or

impede

Paladin’s ability to protect an interest that is the subject of
this action.
an

As discussed above, this action will not involve

adjudication

of

whether

Paladin

owns

title

to

the

real

property in Mississippi; Paladin will continue to hold title to
the property, subject to any liens.

3

Finally,

the

Amoses

did

not

point

to

any

reason

why

disposing of this action without Paladin would leave one of the
other parties to this action subject to a substantial risk of
incurring inconsistent obligations.

The Amoses did point to a

Georgia

finding

Court

of

Appeals

opinion

that

the

current

holders of title to foreclosed property were necessary parties
in a wrongful foreclosure action brought by the former owners
under Georgia’s version of Rule 19 because “their absence could
leave the defendants subject to a substantial risk of incurring
multiple obligations by reason of the former owners’ interest in
the property.”

Wilcher v. Way Acceptance Co., 700 S.E.2d 876,

878 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

Wilcher does not apply here because

the Amoses do not assert that they are at risk of inconsistent
obligations if Paladin is not joined.
In summary, the Amoses did not establish that Paladin is a
required party under Rule 19(a).

Thus, the Court declines to

order that Paladin be made a party, and the Amoses’ Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 29) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of February, 2017.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4