FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. AMOS et al
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
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, as Receiver for
GulfSouth Private Bank,
CASE NO. 4:16-CV-284 (CDL)
WILLIAM L. AMOS, JENNIFER C.
AMOS, and WLA INVESTMENTS INC.,
O R D E R
Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC-R”), as
Defendant Jennifer C. Amos.
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.
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
Under that rule, a third party “must be joined as
“claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is
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.”
Fed. R. Civ.
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).
is only when a required party “cannot be joined” that the Court
action should proceed among the existing parties or should be
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
FDIC-R asserts that Paladin is a Georgia LLC.
action under which Paladin agreed to be enjoined from taking
several actions with regard to certain real property in Biloxi,
Consent Order Granting Prelim. Inj. 1 & n.1, 5-6,
ECF No. 17.
Thus, it appears that joinder is feasible.
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.
interests in the real property in Mississippi.
But FDIC-R does
not seek an adjudication of whether Paladin owns title to the
Paladin will continue to hold the real property, subject to any
FDIC-R seeks an adjudication regarding (1) whether Mr.
includes the mortgage that encumbers Paladin’s real property in
The Court should be able to answer these questions
The Amoses also did not point to any reason why disposing
Paladin’s ability to protect an interest that is the subject of
As discussed above, this action will not involve
property in Mississippi; Paladin will continue to hold title to
the property, subject to any liens.
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
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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?