Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01090/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01090-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1104 Recovery of Benefits to Employee

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06CV1090 WQH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL CHASAN M.D, an individual; PAUL

CHASAN, M.D., INC., a California

Corporation; PAUL CHASAN, M.D., INC.

WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, an employee

benefits plan under ERISA,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06CV1090 WQH (NLS)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE

INSURANCE INC.’S MOTIONS TO

JOIN FRANK MONTES AND

LAWRENCE D. CRONIN AS THIRD

PARTY DEFENDANTS PURSUANT

TO FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)

vs.

THE GARRETT GROUP, a California

Corporation; MATTHEW GARRETT, an

individual; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware

corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court are Defendant John Hancock Life Insurance Inc.’s motions to join

Frank Montes and Lawrence D. Cronin as third party defendants. (Doc. # 24, 30). The Court finds

these matters suitable for submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7.1(d)(1).

BACKGROUND

On May 18, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this matter and asserted federal Employee

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims as well as numerous state law claims. (Doc. # 1).

Case 3:06-cv-01090-WQH-NLS Document 36 Filed 04/25/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06CV1090 WQH (NLS)

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Matthew Garrett (Garrett), The Garrett Group (Garrett Group), and

John Hancock Life Insurance Inc. (Hancock) induced Plaintiffs participation in an illegal welfare

benefits plan by omitting and failing to disclose material information. On September 20, 2006,

Hancock answered and asserted affirmative defenses. (Doc. # 10). On September 22, 2006, Garrett

and Garrett Group moved to dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. # 12). On January 18, 2007, the Court

granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 22). On February 12, 2007, and

March 14, 2007, Hancock moved to join Frank Montes (Montes) and Lawrence D. Cronin (Cronin)

as a third party defendants pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a). (Docs. # 24, 30).

DISCUSSION

FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a) provides that, 

[a] person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the

court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in

the action if (1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among

those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the

action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may

(I) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest,

or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring

double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed

interest.”

FED.R.CIV. P. 19(a); see also Disabled Rights Action Comm v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861,

879 (9th Cir. 2004). “The term complete relief used in Rule 19(a) refers to relief as between the

persons already parties, not as between a party and the absent person whose joinder is sought.” First

Nat’l Montana Bank v. Federal Leasing, Inc., 110 F.R.D. 675, 677 (D. Mont. 1986); see Las Vegas

Events, 375 F.3d at 879. Joinder of “necessary” parties pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)(1) “is

concerned with consummate rather than partial or hollow relief as to those already parties, and with

precluding multiple lawsuits on the same cause of action.” Las Vegas Events, 375 F.3d at 879, citing

Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 705 F.2d 1030, 1043 (9th Cir. 1983). In order to

determine whether a party should be joined pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 19(a)(1), a “court asks whether

the absence of the party would preclude the district court from fashioning meaningful relief as

between the parties.” Las Vegas Events, 375 F.3d at 879, see also Blumberg v. Gates, 203 F.R.D. 444,

446 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

Hancock alleges that Montes and Cronin received fees and commissions for assisting

Case 3:06-cv-01090-WQH-NLS Document 36 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 06CV1090 WQH (NLS)

Plaintiffs’ purchase of the welfare benefits plan and policy. Hancock contends that in the event that

Plaintiffs should prevail in this suit, Hancock will be entitled to indemnity for such fees and

commissions it paid to Montes and Cronin. Hancock contends that joinder of Montes and Cronin is

necessary because without the joinder, complete relief will not be available to Hancock.

As noted above, “[t]he term complete relief used in Rule 19(a) refers to relief as between the

persons already parties, not as between a party and the absent person whose joinder is sought.” First

Nat’l Montana Bank, 110 F.R.D. at 677; see also Las Vegas Events, 375 F.3d at 879. Here, there is

no indication that complete relief cannot be afforded between the current Plaintiffs and Defendants.

Rather, Hancock contends that it alone will not be afforded complete relief because of the absence of

Cronin and Montes as third party defendants. The Court concludes that this allegation does not entitle

Hancock to join Cronin and Montes pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)(1). Furthermore, there is no

indication that Cronin or Montes “[claim] an interest relating to the subject of this action” as would

be required for joinder pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)(2). Accordingly, and after reviewing the

motions to join Cronin and Montes as third party defendants, the Court concludes that joinder of those

parties is not appropriate pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a). Hancock’s motions to join Cronin and

Montes as third party defendants pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a) are DENIED without prejudice.

(Docs. # 24, 30).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 25, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01090-WQH-NLS Document 36 Filed 04/25/07 Page 3 of 3