Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05824-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

Case No.15-cv-05824 NC 

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL WALLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., A NEW 

YORK CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-05824 NC 

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL

BRIEFING RE: HELENE WALLIS

In this mortgage foreclosure case, Randall Wallis sues Citi Mortgage, seeking to 

stop the foreclosure of his house and to quiet title to the property. However, Randall 

Wallis’ ex-wife, Helene Wallis was a co-borrower on the underlying mortgage loan. Citi 

Mortgage moves to dismiss the complaint, and argues in part that Helene Wallis is a 

necessary party in this litigation. Randall Wallis has attached his divorce decree to the 

complaint, which provides that Helene will be held harmless from the debts on the 

property. However, Citi Mortgage is not a party to this divorce decree.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 

Case 5:15-cv-05824-NC Document 33 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 15-cv-05824 NC 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because 

of the interest.

The Ninth Circuit frames the indispensable party inquiry into a three part analysis: 

(1) whether a nonparty should be joined under Rule 19(a); (2) if so, whether it is feasible to 

order that the absentee be joined; and (3) if joinder is not feasible, whether the case can

proceed without the absentee. If not, dismissal of the case is proper. E.E.O.C. v. Peabody 

W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 2005); Trinh v. Citibank, NA, No. 12-cv-03902 

EJD, 2012 WL 6574860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2012).

As to the first element, Helene Wallis was a co-borrower on the loan, has an interest 

in the title of the property, and could bring many of the same claims as Randall Wallis

against Citi Mortgage. The divorce decree states that Helene should be held “harmless 

from the mortgage debt on the property.” This decree does not appear to change the nature 

of the relationship between Helene Wallis and Citi Mortgage, but rather it changes the 

nature of the relationship between Randall Wallis and Helene Wallis as to the debt on the 

property upon judgment. The Court concludes that Helene Wallis should be joined under 

Rule 19(a). Helene Wallis claims an interest in the property that she may be interested in 

protecting, and without her joinder, Citi Mortgage may be subject to a substantial risk of 

incurring double inconsistent obligations. 

Second, the Court must consider whether it is feasible to order Helene Wallis to join 

the litigation. Joinder is not feasible “when venue is improper, when the absentee is not 

subject to personal jurisdiction, and when joinder would destroy subject matter 

jurisdiction.” E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 2005). The 

parties did not address this inquiry in their motion to dismiss briefing. 

Thus, the Court ORDERS the parties to submit additional briefing as to whether it 

is feasible to order Helene Wallis to join the litigation. Plaintiff must submit additional 

briefing by April 15, 2016. Defendant may respond by April 22, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05824-NC Document 33 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 2