Opinion ID: 771983
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Indu Craft Moves to Join Trendi in the 1987 Action

Text: 21 Shortly thereafter, on December 10, 1990, Indu Craft moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) to join Trendi as a necessary party-plaintiff in the 1987 Action on the grounds that complete relief could not be afforded without such joinder. 6 Indu Craft argued that joinder of Trendi was necessary because Baroda would be exposed to a subsequent lawsuit by Indu Craft for indemnification for damages claimed by Trendi for Indu Craft's failure to timely supply Trendi with goods which Indu Craft was prevented from importing as a result of Baroda's wrongful and tortious conduct in terminating Indu Craft's line of credit. Baroda opposed joining Trendi because adding Trendi would introduce new issues, would require additional, repetitious, time consuming and costly discovery and would unnecessarily delay resolution of the case. In a memorandum and order dated June 7, 1991, Judge Duffy denied Indu Craft's motion to join Trendi as a necessary party, concluding that adding Trendi at this point serves no function but to further complicate an action which is already unnecessarily complicated as it stands today. Indu Craft, 1991 WL 107438, at  n. 2. Judge Duffy's decision was also based in part on the fact that Trendi and Indu Craft were both wholly owned by Mehta, and thus for Trendi to sue Indu Craft would be the equivalent of the right pocket suing the left pocket. Id. However, Judge Duffy reinstated Indu Craft's three claims for relief because Indu Craft had demonstrated a present ability to sustain its burden of proof as to the existence and quantum of its damages. Id. at . Judge Duffy then ordered discovery closed and that the case proceed to trial. 7 See id. at . The trial was then scheduled to start in July 1992 before Magistrate Judge Leonard Bernikow. 22 D. Baroda Moves In Limine To Bar Indu Craft From Introducing Evidence of Trendi Damages in the 1987 Action 23 Before the start of the trial in the 1987 Action, Baroda, on July 8, 1992, moved in limine to exclude Indu Craft from introducing any evidence of Trendi damages at trial. Baroda argued that evidence of Trendi damages in the 1987 Action jury trial was inappropriate principally because Trendi was not a party to the 1987 Action and [i]t is axiomatic that only a party to an action can recover damages. Magistrate Judge Bernikow granted Baroda's motion and disallowed evidence of Trendi damages in part because Trendi was not a party to the 1987 Action. However, the magistrate judge did grant Indu Craft the right to present evidence of Trendi damages on rebuttal in the event that Baroda attempted to establish that Indu Craft did not suffer any damages because some of its orders were filled by Trendi. Baroda never introduced any such evidence. 24