Wiles v. McLean et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 16 plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Add Parties Plaintiff (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 9/1/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSEPH C. WILES,
LISA CANTEY,
NATALIE TAYLOR,
THEA SLAVIN,
MICHAEL COOPER,
MARILYN HOLMES, and
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JENNIE MCLEAN, In Her Capacity
as Administrative Law Judge; and
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-146-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Add Parties Plaintiff, filed June 5, 2015.
On June 26, 2015, defendants filed their response. Plaintiffs have filed no reply. Based upon the
parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1)(B)(i) and (ii), plaintiffs move this Court
to add twenty-three (23) additional plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert that the additional individuals have
also been wrongfully denied their right to a hearing on their requests for Social Security benefits by
defendants and their agents and wish to be added as additional plaintiffs in this case.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
(1)

Required Party. A person who is subject to service of
process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of
subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:
*
*
*

(B)

that person claims an interest relating to the subject of
the action and is so situated that disposing of the
action in the 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i),(ii).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that Rule 19 does not
require the joinder of the additional individuals as plaintiffs in this case. Specifically, the Court
finds that plaintiffs have not shown that the proposed additional plaintiffs are so situated that
disposing of the action in their absence may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to
protect their interest or leave an existing party to this case subject to a substantial risk of incurring
double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of these proposed additional
plaintiffs’ interests. If these proposed additional plaintiffs are not joined in this action, they still will
have all of their administrative and judicial remedies.
Additionally, the Court finds that plaintiffs should not be granted leave under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15 to amend their complaint to add these additional plaintiffs. Specifically, the
Court finds that adding these additional plaintiffs would cause undue delay, would unduly prejudice
defendants, and would be contrary to judicial economy. It appears that the claims of the additional
plaintiffs would be predicated on different facts and circumstances.

2

Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Add Parties Plaintiff [docket
no. 16].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2015.

3