Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02704/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02704-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward Kinnally, a single man; Charles

Zovko, a married man filing as an

individual; William Coghlan, a married

man filing as an individual; and Kevin

Sysak, a married man filing as an

individual,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Rogers Corporation, a Massachusetts

corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2704-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 19 Motion to Join Plaintiffs Zovko’s,

Coghlan’s and Sysak’s Spouses as Parties or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Plaintiffs

Zovko’s, Coghlan’s and Sysak’s Claims for Failure to Name an Indispensable Party (Doc.

# 76). The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 6), Plaintiffs’

Response (Doc. # 85), and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. # 89). For the following reasons, the

Court will grant Defendant’s Motion in part as to joining Plaintiff Zovko’s, Coghlan’s, and

Sysak’s spouses as party plaintiffs and deny the Motion in part as to dismissing Plaintiffs

Zovko’s, Coghlan’s, and Sysak’s claims for failure to name an indispensable party.

Case 2:06-cv-02704-JAT Document 91 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 6
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 -

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Edward Kinnally, Charles Zovko, William Coghlan, and Kevin Sysak all

were employed by Rogers Corporation (“Rogers”) for varying periods of time and began

working for the Durel Division of Rogers at the time of its creation in 2003. (Doc. # 6, at 5.)

While working at Durel, all of the Plaintiffs were over the age of forty. (Id.) On or about

October 5, 2004, Rogers terminated all of the Plaintiffs. (Id.) Plaintiffs brought suit against

Rogers claiming age discrimination under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634, and seek

damages, including back pay and front pay. (Doc. # 6, at 8.) Plaintiffs Zovko, Coghlan, and

Sysak are married, however, their spouses are not currently parties to this lawsuit. (Id. at

3–4.)

Rogers moves to join Plaintiff Zovko’s spouse, Dragica Zovko, Plaintiff Coghlan’s

spouse, Cheryl Foster, and Plaintiff Sysak’s spouse, April B. Sysak, as party plaintiffs or in

the alternative, to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. (Doc. # 76, at 2.) Rogers argues that Plaintiffs’

spouses and marital communities are indispensable parties under Rule 19 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

A. Legal Standard

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 governs the question of whether a person not a

party to a suit should be joined because he is necessary for a more complete settlement of the

dispute.” Cutrona v. Sun Health Corp., No. CV 06-02184-PHX-MHM, 2007 WL 4150210,

at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2007). Rule 19 in relevant part provides: 

(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. (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: (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

Case 2:06-cv-02704-JAT Document 91 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 6
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 -

the interest . . . (2) Joinder by Court Order. If a person has not been joined as

required, the court must order that the person be made a party.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) (emphasis added). The absence of necessary parties under Rule 19 may

be properly raised by any party “at any stage in the proceeding.” CP Nat’l Corp. v.

Bonneville Power Admin., 928 F.2d 905, 911–12 (9th Cir. 1991); Weimer v. Maricopa

County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 184 F.R.D. 309, 310–11 (D. Ariz. 1998). “An entity’s status as a

‘necessary’ party is not judged by any prescribed formula, but instead ‘can only be

determined in the context of particular litigation.’” CP Nat’l Corp., 928 F.2d at 12 (quoting

Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 118 (1968)).

Under Arizona law, a “judgment against one spouse does not bind the community.”

Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane, 676 P.2d 669, 670 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). Both spouses must be sued

jointly in order for a plaintiff to hold the marital community accountable for an obligation.

Id. At least three other courts in this district have held that a plaintiff’s spouse may be

properly joined as a necessary party under Rule 19(a) in order to protect the spouse’s

interests and for the purpose of permitting the defendant to seek attorneys’ fees and costs

against the marital community. Cutrona, 2007 WL 4150210, at *1; Henson v. Air Nat’l

Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test Ctr., No. CV 06-526-TUC-FRZ, 2007 WL

2903993, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2007); Weimer, 184 F.R.D. at 310-11. The “preferable

method” of protecting a plaintiff’s spouse’s interests is to join them as a party plaintiff.

Weimer, 184 F.R.D. at 311.

B. Discussion

Here, Rogers alleges that Plaintiffs’ spouses are necessary parties to the matter and

should be joined as party plaintiffs under Rule 19(a) because in their absence Rogers cannot

be granted complete relief. (Doc. # 76, at 2.) Rogers alleges that it may be entitled to

recover some or all of its attorneys’ fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), 29 U.S.C. §

216, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in the event that Plaintiffs do not prevail in their lawsuit. (Doc.

# 76, at 2.) Under Arizona law, Plaintiffs’ spouses must be joined as party plaintiffs for the

marital community to be bound under a judgment awarding attorneys’ fees to Rogers.

Case 2:06-cv-02704-JAT Document 91 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

Spudnuts, 676 P.2d at 670. Thus, Rogers states that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to seek

a legal award that would benefit their marital communities, while also insulating the

communities from a potential award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Rogers. (Doc. # 76, at

2.) 

Rogers also alleges that Plaintiffs’ spouses are necessary parties to the litigation in

order to protect the spouses’ legal interests in the alleged damages sought by Plaintiffs.

(Doc. # 76, at 4.) Plaintiffs seek to recover lost wages, which are considered to be

community property in Arizona. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-211; Shaw v. Greer, 194 P.2d

430, 431 (Ariz. 1948). Rogers argues that Plaintiffs’ spouses should be joined in order to

protect the spouses’ interests from being impaired. (Doc. # 76, at 4.) 

Plaintiffs contend that their spouses need not be joined as party plaintiffs and have

raised three arguments to support this contention. Plaintiffs first allege that Rogers has no

reason to protect Plaintiffs’ spouses’ interests. (Doc. # 85, at 3.) Plaintiffs argue that there

has been no showing that they are not adequately protecting their spouses’ interests in the

case. (Id.) 

In Weimer, the district court found that the preferable method of protecting the

plaintiff’s spouse’s interests in the claim for lost wages was to join the spouse as a party

plaintiff, despite the defendants presenting no evidence that the plaintiff was not adequately

representing his spouse’s interests. 184 F.R.D. at 311. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’

spouses have an interest in the case and, consequently, may be improperly impaired if they

are not joined as party plaintiffs. Id. at *2. Accordingly, Rogers need not show that

Plaintiffs are not adequately protecting their spouses’ interests in the case in order to join

them as party plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs next argue that Rogers will not be denied “complete relief” under Rule 19

if the Plaintiffs’ spouses are not joined to the case because attorneys’ fees are only available

if a claim was frivolous. Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978);

(Doc. # 85, at 4 n.3.) Plaintiffs assert that it is unlikely that Rogers would be able to meet

this standard. (Doc. # 85, at 4 n.3.) 

Case 2:06-cv-02704-JAT Document 91 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

In Henson, the district court held that a plaintiff’s spouse should be joined as a party

in order to accord full relief to the defendants, based on the “possibility” that the defendants

could prevail on a claim for attorneys’ fees. 2007 WL 2903993, at *6 n.6. Here, like

Henson, Rogers must seek to recover jointly from Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ spouses in order

to recover from the marital communities. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’

spouses must be joined to bind the marital community and afford Rogers complete relief

under a judgment awarding it attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiffs’ third argument states that the Motion should be denied as a result of

Rogers’s undue delay in filing without good cause. (Doc. # 85, at 4.) Plaintiffs allege that

Rogers’s Motion comes at the end of the discovery period and long after the deadlines to

amend the pleadings. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs rely upon two cases from other circuits where the

courts denied Rule 19 motions as untimely. Ne. Drilling, Inc. v. Inner Space Servs., Inc., 243

F.3d 25, 36-37 (1st Cir. 2001); Gil Enters. v. DeIvy, 79 F.3d 241, 247-48 (2d Cir. 1996).

This Court finds that while these cases are somewhat relevant, they are distinguishable. In

Gil Enters., the Second Circuit denied a Rule 19 Motion to join an indispensable party

because the moving party waited until the close of trial to file the Motion. 79 F.3d at 247.

And, in Ne. Drilling, the First Circuit denied the defendants’ Rule 19 Motion to join an

additional party because the moving party waited until after the deadline to join additional

parties as specified in the pretrial scheduling order. 243 F.3d at 37.

Unlike Gil Enters., Rogers’s Motion was filed well before trial. Also, unlike Ne.

Drilling, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order here did not specifically address adding new parties.

But the Rule 16 Scheduling Order in this case did state a deadline for filing an amended

complaint, which has passed. To add new parties would serve to amend the Complaint.

Nonetheless, rather than dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for failing to name an indispensable party,

this Court finds that joining the parties is more appropriate. Rogers has conceded that this

joinder will not necessitate more discovery. (Doc. # 89, at 5.) Joining Plaintiffs’ spouses

therefore will have no impact on the timely disposition of this case. Further, the Ninth

Circuit permits the absence of a necessary party to be properly raised at any stage in the

Case 2:06-cv-02704-JAT Document 91 Filed 04/29/08 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

proceeding. CP Nat’l Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 928 F.2d 905, 911-12 (9th Cir.

1991); McShan v. Sherrill, 283 F.2d 462, 464 (9th Cir. 1960). Consequently, this Court finds

that the Motion should not be denied as untimely.

Plaintiffs’ spouses are necessary parties to this case under Rule 19(a) and should be

joined as party plaintiffsin order to protect Plaintiffs’spouses’ interests and because in their

absence complete relief cannot be afforded to Rogers. Thus, Rogers’s request for dismissal

based on Plaintiffs’ failure to name an indispensable party is denied as moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion (Doc. # 76) as to joining Plaintiff

Zovko’s spouse, Dragica Zovko, Plaintiff Coghlan’s spouse, Cheryl Foster, and

Plaintiff Sysak’s spouse, April B. Sysak, as party plaintiffs.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended Complaint adding

their spouses as co-plaintiffs per this Order by May 5, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion (Doc. # 76) as to

dismissing Plaintiffs Zovko’s, Coghlan’s, and Sysak’s claims for failure to name an

indispensable party.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02704-JAT Document 91 Filed 04/29/08 Page 6 of 6