Niven v. Rankins et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #19) is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 4/10/15. (cm, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

MARSHA NIVEN
v.
E-CARE EMERGENCY MCKINNEY, LP,
E-CARE EMERGENCY FRISCO, LLC,
and ROBERT RANKINS, INDIVIDUALLY

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 4:14-CV-00494
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Party
Under Rule 19 (Dkt. #19). Having considered the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the
motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201,
et seq. (the “FLSA”). Plaintiff was employed by Defendants between 2008 and August 2014.
(Dkt. #14 at ¶ 20). Defendants assert that Plaintiff provided services under an agreement
between Plaintiff and Defendants from April 2008 until February 2013. (Dkt. #19 at ¶ 3).
Effective February 1, 2013, Defendants entered into an agreement with R2 Elite Medical
Management Solutions, LLC (“R2 Elite”) (Dkt. #19 at ¶ 4). Following the execution of the
agreement, R2 Elite assumed sole responsibility for screening, placing, managing, compensating,
and disciplining all physician assistants providing services at the Defendants’ facilities. (Dkt. #19
at ¶ 4-6).
On December 1, 2014, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss for failure to join a party
under Rule 19 (Dkt. #19). On December 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed her response (Dkt. #23). On
December 24, 2014, Defendants filed their reply (Dkt. #28).
1

LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) alleges that a
plaintiff has failed to join a party under Rule 19. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(7). In deciding a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7), the Court makes two inquiries under Rule 19. HS Res., Inc.
v. Wingate, 327 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2003). The Court must first determine under Rule 19(a)1
whether a person should be joined to the lawsuit. Id. “If joinder is warranted, then the person
will be brought into the lawsuit. But if such joinder would destroy the court’s jurisdiction, then
the court must determine under Rule 19(b) whether to press forward without the person or to
dismiss the litigation.” HS Res., 327 F.3d at 439; see August v. Boyd Gaming Corp., 135 F.
App’x 731, 732 (5th Cir. 2005). In this case, the burden is on the Defendant, as the movant, to
show that R2 Elite is a necessary and required party. See Payan v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., Inc., 232
F.R.D. 587, 589 (S.D. Tex. 2005).
ANALYSIS
Defendants assert that R2 Elite is a required party under Rule 19 because the Court
cannot grant Plaintiff complete relief because “Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime from Defendants for the period of time she worked for R2 Elite.” (Dkt #19 at ¶ 8).
However, complete relief can be awarded in R2 Elite’s absence because Plaintiff seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime from Defendants not only for the period of time she
allegedly worked for R2 Elite, but also for a period of time that she worked for Defendants.2

1

Rule 19(a) provides: “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: (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 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).
2
“In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary and indispensable party, a court must accept the
complaint allegations as true.” United States v. Rutherford Oil Corp., CIV.A. G-08-0231, 2009 WL 1351794, at *2
(S.D. Tex. May 13, 2009) (citing Davis Cos. v. Emerald Casino, Inc., 268 F.3d 477, 479 n. 2 (7th Cir. 2001)).

2

“The definition of ‘complete relief’ under Rule 19(a)(1) refers to relief as between the persons
already parties, not as between a party and the absent person whose joinder is sought.” Ortiz v.
A.N.P., Inc., 10-CV-917, 2010 WL 3702595, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2010). It “does not
concern ‘any subsequent relief via contribution or indemnification for which the absent party
might later be responsible.’” Id. (quoting Bedel v. Thompson, 103 F.R.D. 78, 80 (S.D. Ohio
1984)).
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint provides a sufficient pleading of Plaintiff’s claims
(Dkt. #14). As such, the question of whether any Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer under the
FLSA is a question to be determined in this case. Further, complete relief can be accorded
without joining R2 Elite because joint and several liability exists amongst employers under the
FLSA. See Moreno v. EDCare Mgmt., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 258 (W.D. Tex. 2007).
Defendants further assert that R2 Elite is a required party because Defendants would be
subjected to a “substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent
obligations,” and R2 Elite’s ability to protect its legal interest in the subject matter of the present
suit would be impaired. (See FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a); Dkt. #19 at ¶ 9). Defendants assert that R2
Elite is solely responsible for Plaintiff’s claim based upon the February 1, 2013 contract between
Defendants and R2 Elite (Dkt. #19 at ¶¶ 4, 6, 9). Defendants assert that beginning February 1,
2013, Plaintiff was placed by R2 Elite, and that Defendants were not “involved in setting
Plaintiff’s hours, determining the rate or amount at which Plaintiff was compensated, including
decisions regarding bonuses and raises, supervising Plaintiff’s work, or making payment to
Plaintiff for any services she provided on behalf of R2 Elite.” (Dkt. #19 at ¶ 6).
Joinder of an absent party is required under Rule 19 “if its absence subjects an existing
party to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.”

3

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Armstrong, No. EP-13-CV-0032-KC, 2013 WL 3874028, at *7 (W.D.
Tex. July 24, 2013) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(ii)). Inconsistent obligations occur when
an existing party cannot comply with one court’s order without breaching the order of another
court that pertains to the same incident. Immobiliaria Axias, S.A. de C.V. v. Robles Intern. Serv.,
Inc., No. EP-07-CA-00269-KC, 2007 WL 2973483, at 6 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2007) (citing
Delgado v. Plaza Las Americas Inc., 139 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1998); see James v. Valvoline, Inc.,
159 F. Supp. 2d 544, 551 (S.D. Tex. 2001) (“This portion of Rule 19 is simply not concerned
with non-parties.”).
Defendants have not demonstrated that the absence of R2 Elite would subject them to a
substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations under Rule 19. Plaintiff is seeking to
recover unpaid wages not only for the period of time that she was allegedly employed by R2
Elite, but also that time that she was employed by Defendants (Dkt. #14 at ¶ 20; Dkt. #19 at ¶¶ 36). The Court finds it unlikely that Defendants will incur inconsistent obligations due to R2
Elite’s absence.
Additionally, the Court finds it unlikely that a finding of joint and several liability would
impair R2 Elite’s ability to protect its interest in a subsequent suit (Dkt. #19 at ¶ 9). It is wellsettled that joint tortfeasors are not considered required or indispensable parties under Rule 19.
See Nottingham v. Gen. Am. Commc’n. Corp., 811 F.2d 873, 880 (5th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs are
not required to name all possible joint tortfeasors in a single action. See Temple v. Synthes Corp.,
498 U.S. 5, 7 (1990). A joint tortfeasor is merely a permissive party. Id. (citation omitted). As a
possible joint tortfeasor, R2 Elite is not a required party. Although Defendants may be able to
seek indemnity or contribution from R2 Elite if the Plaintiff prevails, R2 Elite is not a required

4

party under Rule 19. Defendants have failed to carry their burden under Rule 19 and the motion
.

should be denied.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #19) is hereby
DENIED.
SIGNED this 10th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5