Opinion ID: 2801039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Murphy's Motion to Dismiss

Text: Murphy argues on appeal that the district court erred in not dismissing all claims against Jamie Murphy for C.M.B. (a minor) under Rule 12(b)(7).9 According to Murphy, C.M.B. was over 18 years old at the time the School District filed this action, meaning Jamie Murphy for C.M.B. (a minor) is an improper party. We review the district court's decision to not grant Murphy's 12(b)(7) motion for an abuse of discretion. See HS Res., Inc. v. Wingate, 327 F.3d 432, 438 (5th Cir. 2003). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) permits dismissal of a complaint for failure to join a party under Rule 19, although courts are generally 'reluctant to grant motions to dismiss of this type.' 16th & K Hotel, LP v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 276 F.R.D. 8, 12 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting 5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1359 (3d ed. 2004)); see also Askew v. Sheriff of Cook Cnty., Ill., 568 F.3d 632, 634 (7th Cir. 2009) (Dismissal, however, is not the preferred outcome under the Rules.). Broadly speaking, Rule 19 requires the joinder of parties necessary for the fair and complete resolution of the case; when joinder of such a party is not feasible, however, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties could bring suit against tribal officials or employees (rather than the Tribe itself) seeking an injunction . . . . [T]ribal immunity does not bar such a suit for injunctive relief against individuals, including tribal officers, responsible for unlawful conduct. (citations omitted)). But, in this case, the School District chose not to name any Tribal officials as defendants. 9 Jamie Murphy for C.M.B. (a minor) is the party who initiated and prosecuted the Tribal Court suit. The School District presumably named her, instead of C.M.B., as the defendant in this action because C.M.B. was never substituted in as the plaintiff in the Tribal Court litigation. -13- or should be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). Determining whether an entity is an indispensable party is a highly-practical, fact-based endeavor, and [Rule] 19's emphasis on a careful examination of the facts means that a district court will ordinarily be in a better position to make a Rule 19 decision than a circuit court would be. Hood ex rel. Miss. v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 570 F.3d 625, 628 (5th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). The district court dismissed the entire case on jurisdictional grounds, rendering Murphy's Rule 12(b)(7) motion moot. The district court may need to address Murphy's Rule 12(b)(7) motion on remand in light of our decision today, but it did not abuse its discretion in declining to rule on the motion before dismissing the case on other grounds. See, e.g., Vacanti v. Sunset Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 8:08CV436, 2009 WL 792387, at  (D. Neb. Mar. 23, 2009) (holding that a defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7), 19(a) and 9(b) [was] moot because plaintiff's claims were dismissed on other grounds); C.W. Limousine Serv., Inc. v. City of Chi., No. 96 C 5130, 1997 WL 208439, at  n.1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 21, 1997) (same).