Bardes v. Silver State Financial Services et al

Filing 146

ORDER Denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 88 Motion for Joinder of Necessary Parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) vs. ) U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) PRISCILLA BARDES, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01109-RFB-GWF ORDER 12 13 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Joinder of Necessary Parties (ECF No. 88), 14 filed on November 10, 2016. To date, no party has filed an opposition to this motion and the time for 15 response has now expired. 16 This action was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court on May 17, 2016. ECF No. 1. This 17 matter arises from a foreclosure of real property dispute and Plaintiff asserts ten causes of action against 18 Defendants in her complaint. See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff requests an order compelling her son, Richey 19 Garrison Guidi, to join this action as a necessary party pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. Plaintiff represents that Mr. Guidi is an owner of and resides in the home that is the subject of this 21 action. See Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 88), pg. 7. It appears that Plaintiff is suing on her own behalf as 22 well as in her capacity as trustee for Mr. Guidi. See Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 23 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a), a party must be joined as a “necessary” party in 24 two circumstances: “(1) when complete relief is not possible without the absent party's presence, or (2) when 25 the absent party claims a legally protected interest in the action.” In re County of Orange, 262 F.3d 1014, 26 1022 (9th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted). If the Court finds an absent party is “necessary” under either of 27 these tests, the Court then determines whether joinder is feasible. E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 28 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir.2005). If joinder of the necessary party is feasible, then the 1 party will be joined and the action will proceed. Cundiff v. Dollar Loan Ctr. LLC, 726 F. Supp. 2d 2 1232, 1243 (D. Nev. 2010). 3 The inquiry is fact-specific and practical. N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 466, 468 (9th 4 Cir.1986). For this reason, it may be necessary to review evidence beyond the pleadings. Lennar Mare 5 Island, LLC v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1141, 1150 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting McShan v. 6 Sherrill, 283 F.2d 462, 464 (9th Cir.1960). A financial stake in the outcome of the litigation does not give 7 rise to Rule 19 necessity. Id. 8 Plaintiff has not given sufficient information to show that Mr. Guidi must be joined as a necessary 9 party. She has identified herself as the trustee for Mr. Guidi in regard to the property at issue. See Plaintiff’s 10 Motion (ECF No. 88), pg. 1. Plaintiff fails to establish that the Court cannot grant complete relief among the 11 existing parties without the inclusion of Mr. Guidi as a party. Plaintiff also represents that “[Mr.Guidi] has not 12 indicated any interest in being a Plaintiff or participating in this action in anyway...” Id. at pg. 6. The Court, 13 therefore, denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Joinder of Necessary Parties without prejudice. Accordingly, 14 15 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Joinder of Necessary Parties (ECF No. 88) is denied, without prejudice. DATED this 21st day of March, 2017. 17 18 19 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?