Reid, et al v. Moore

Filing 19

Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/8/2021 denying Motion to dismiss case. (Related Doc # 8 )(S,KM)

Case: 1:21-cv-00991-JG Doc #: 19 Filed: 09/08/21 1 of 3. PageID #: 119

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------LARRY D. REID, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DARRYL MOORE,
Defendant,
-------------------------------------------------------

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:21-cv-00991
OPINION AND ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 8]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Defendant Darryl Moore moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 to dismiss
the complaint for failure to join three unnamed parties. 1 Plaintiff opposes the motion. 2
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss.
I.

Background

Plaintiff Reid sued Defendant Moore for defamation, false light invasion of privacy,
public disclosure of private facts, and deceptive trade practices. 3 Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant posted numerous YouTube videos accusing him of various crimes. 4 Among many
other allegations, Plaintiff Reed alleges that Defendant Moore posted a video featuring guests
who accused Plaintiff of sexual assault. 5 Defendant admits to posting videos about Plaintiff
but asserts that he shared his views as opinions rather than fact. 6 Defendant also asserts truth
as a defense. 7

1

Doc. 8.
Doc. 10.
3
Doc. 1.
4
Id. at ¶ 3.
5
Id. at ¶¶ 38-39.
6
Doc. 12 at ¶ 32.
7
Id. at 12.
2

Case: 1:21-cv-00991-JG Doc #: 19 Filed: 09/08/21 2 of 3. PageID #: 120
Case No. 1:21-cv-00991
Gwin, J.
Defendant Moore moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to join an indispensable
party. 8 Moore argues that the lawsuit cannot proceed without joining the supposed abuse
victims who appeared in some of the videos.
II.

Discussion

Defendant Moore fails to give any reason justifying dismissal here. Defendant’s entire
motion consists of the text of the rule, the text of one paragraph of the complaint, and two
conclusory statements.
Even if Defendant had submitted an appropriate motion, it would fail at the first step
of Rule 19 analysis.
Mandatory Rule 19 joinder analysis first requires the Court to determine whether the
absent party is “necessary” under Rule 19(a). 9 An absent party is “necessary” when:
(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 that 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
double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of
the interest. 10

None of these three conditions apply to the guests on Defendant Moore’s show.
First, the Court can afford “complete relief” under Rule 19(a)(1)(A) without joining the
guests. Rule 19 requires joinder of all parties necessary so that the “plaintiff may receive
8
9

Doc. 8.

Glancy v. Taubman Ctrs., Inc., 373 F.3d 656, 666 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 8 (1990)).
Fort Wash. Investment Advisors, Inc. v. Adkins, No. 19-cv-685, 2021 WL 1345417, at *9 (S.D. Apr. 12, Ohio 2021)

10

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)).

-2-

Case: 1:21-cv-00991-JG Doc #: 19 Filed: 09/08/21 3 of 3. PageID #: 121
Case No. 1:21-cv-00991
Gwin, J.
complete relief from this defendant.” 11 “Complete relief is determined as between persons
already parties, ‘and not as between a party and the absent person whose joinder is
sought.’” 12
Plaintiff alleges defamation in dozens of videos and can obtain complete relief from
Mr. Moore without joining guests who appeared in two of those videos.
Defendant Moore’s motion offers no indication that the guests claim an interest in this
litigation. Even if they were impacted by Plaintiff Reid’s conduct, nothing stops them from
bringing their own lawsuit.
Finally, there is no substantial risk that Defendant will incur “double, multiple, or
otherwise inconsistent obligations.” “Inconsistent obligations occur” only when “a party is
unable to comply with one court’s order without breaching another court’s order concerning
the same incident.” 13 Defendant offers no suggestion that other litigation could subject him
to an inconsistent obligation here.
III.

Conclusion
Because none of the Rule 19 criteria indicate that the video guests are necessary

parties, the Court DENIES Defendant Moore’s motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/

Dated: September 8, 2021

James S. Gwin

JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Ops., LLC, 443 F. Supp. 3d 877, 884 (S.D. Ohio 2020) (emphasis added).
Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 485 Fed. Appx. 39, 44 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (citing Sch. Dist. of City of
Pontiac v. Sec. of U.S. Dept. of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 265 (6th Cir. 2009)).
13
Delgado v. Plaza Las Ams., Inc., 139 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1998).
11
12

-3-