Harvill v. Harvill et al
ORDER: Because his participation is not necessary to accord complete relief to the existing parties on the claims currently before the Court, and because he has claimed no interest in the subject matter of this case, the Court finds that Mr. McKiev er is not a necessary party under either Rule 19(a)(l)(A) or (B). Accordingly, Defendant Harvill's Motion to Dismiss 40 is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 3/27/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)
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?