Opinion ID: 1954302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judgment against Airport Plaza in favor of Hector

Text: Airport Plaza contends that the trial court erred in ordering judgment against Airport Plaza in favor of the plaintiffs. The sole ground raised is that when the trial court ordered that Airport Plaza would become an additional defendant in the case, Plaintiffs never amended their Complaint to assert any direct cause of action against Airport Plaza and, because there are no pleadings raising any issues of the Plaintiffs against Airport Plaza ... the Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs against Airport Plaza should be vacated. In support of this contention, Airport Plaza has cited three cases Swartz v. Peterson, 199 Neb. 171, 256 N.W.2d 681 (1977); Harrison v. Grizzard, 192 Neb. 243, 219 N.W.2d 766 (1974); and Nehring v. Niemerowicz, 226 Wis. 285, 276 N.W. 325 (1937)for the proposition that [a]s a general rule, a judgment must be supported by the pleadings. Hector and Meinecke-Johnson rely on Rule 19(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., as a ground upon which to make Airport Plaza a direct defendant in order to protect Meinecke-Johnson from incurring a substantial risk of inconsistent obligations. Rule 19, F.R.Civ.P., from which our rule was drawn, is designed to protect the interests of ... persons... before the court from multiple litigation or inconsistent judicial determinations. 7 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1602 (1986). Furthermore, [a]djudication of a case in the absence of persons who have a strong interest in the dispute may lead to a duplication of effort for all concerned. For this reason Rule 19 has been formulated to avoid circuity of actions and in this sense is an aid to judicial administration. Id. In commenting on third-party practice under Rule 14, F.R.Civ.P., from which Rule 14, N.D.R.Civ.P., was drawn, the same authors have observed: Since the 1948 amendment the courts generally have tended to deal with the question of adversity by concluding that, except for those suits in admiralty specifically provided for in Rule 14(c), a formal amendment of plaintiff's complaint is not necessary if the parties actually treat each other in an adverse manner. Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1459 (1990). From the argument presented, we are not persuaded that the trial court erred in ordering judgment against Airport Plaza in favor of the plaintiffs.