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)

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