Rinehart v. Bexar County District Attorney et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING 39 Motion To Join Necessary Party; DENYING 40 Motion to Join Necessary Party. Signed by Judge Nancy Stein Nowak. (tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

HARLAN E. McVEA, by and through
DEBORAH RINEHART, Administratrix,
Individually and in her Representative
Capacity on Behalf of the Estate of
Harlan E. McVea, Deceased,

§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
v.
§
§
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS;
§
UNKNOWN, UNNAMED OFFICERS
§
OF THE BEXAR COUNTY
§
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Individually and
§
Officially; and
§
BEXAR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT,§
d/b/a University Health System,
§
§
Defendants.
§

CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CV-0256 FB (NN)

ORDER CONCERNING JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTY
This order addresses the defendants’ motions to join a necessary party.1 In their
motions, the defendants argued that decedent-plaintiff Harlan McVea’s father—Charles
McVea—is a necessary party in this action. The defendants relied on Rule 19(a)(1) and
asserted that Charles McVea has an interest in this action such that disposing of this
case in his absence may impair or impede Charles McVea’s ability to protect his

1

Docket entry #s 39 & 40.

interest.2
As the parties advocating joinder, the defendants have the initial burden of
demonstrating Charles McVea is a necessary party.3 If “an initial appraisal of the facts
indicates that a possibly necessary party is absent,” the burden shifts to the party
opposing joinder.4 Deborah Rinehart—Harlan McVea’s mother and representative
—did not respond to the defendants’ motion.
Rule 19(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, the following:
A person…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: …(ii) leave an existing
party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or
otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.5
The defendants addressed the second part of the rule by arguing that the failure to join
Charles McVea as a party may subject them to a substantial risk of incurring double or
multiple obligations or other inconsistent obligations, but they did not address the first
part of the rule; that is, the defendants did not address whether Charles McVea claims
an interest in this case. The defendants reported that they contacted Charles McVea,

2

Docket entry # 39, ¶ 2.

3

Hood v. City of Memphis, 570 F.3d 625, 628 (5th Cir. 2009).

4

Hood, 570 F.3d at 628 (internal citation omitted).

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.
2

established that he was Harlan McVea’s father, and confirmed that Rinehart had not
contacted Charles McVea about this case, but they did not state that Charles McVea
claimed an interest in the case. Logically, if Charles McVea expressed an interest in this
case, the defendants would have reported that communication. Thus, nothing indicates
Charles McVea claims an interest in this case. Because the defendants did not show
Charles McVea claims an interest in this case, they did not satisfy the initial burden to
show that Charles McVea is a necessary party. I deny the motions (docket entry #s 39 &
40).
SIGNED on February 28, 2012.

_____________________________________
NANCY STEIN NOWAK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3