Opinion ID: 204228
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Cellco As a Defendant

Text: Finally, Birmingham argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to amend the Complaint to add Cellco as a defendant. The court denied the motion as untimely. Birmingham had known for at least nine months that Cellco was the entity that had made the adverse credit report, but he waited to file his motion until minutes before the final pretrial conference, at which the court was to rule on whether the case could proceed. We doubt that Birmingham has preserved on appeal any argument that the district court erred in ruling that his motion to add Cellco as a defendant was untimely. Some language in his opening brief on appeal might be read to challenge the ruling; but construing his brief as raising the issue would be a stretch, and his reply brief states that he did not argue in his opening brief whether Mr. Birmingham unduly delayed in moving to amend his complaint to specifically name Cellco Partnership. Aplt. Reply Br. at 13. Our general practice is to decline to address issues not raised on appeal until the reply brief. See Stump v. Gates, 211 F.3d 527, 533 (10th Cir.2000). In any event, Birmingham's argument on timeliness in his reply brief is unpersuasive. He relies on Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006), which reversed a district court's decision disallowing as untimely an amendment to a complaint to add a claim. But Minter cannot save Birmingham. Minter recognized this court's precedents that a district court has discretion to deny a motion to amend as untimely when the movant's delay is unexplained. See id. at 1206. Here, unlike the plaintiff in Minter, Birmingham failed to provide an adequate explanation for not moving to amend during the nine months after he proposed a stipulation stating that he had named incorrect parties and that Cellco was the correct party. His sole excuse to the district court was that he was tied up in summary-judgment disputes and was awaiting their resolution. We see no reason why an uncomplicated motion to amend should not have been filed promptly upon discovery of the error in naming parties. Even if Birmingham might have learned something from the court's rulings on the dispositive motions that would have enabled him to improve an amended complaint naming Cellco, he has not explained why that would justify delaying the amendment. Moreover, the district court found that the Verizon Defendants would be prejudiced by a grant of the motion to amend. Yet Minter recognizes that prejudice to nonmovants is a proper ground for denying a motion to amend, id. at 1207-08, and Birmingham has not argued lack of prejudice in his appellate briefs. Birmingham does, however, raise an alternative ground for making Cellco a party. He claims that Cellco was a required party that should have been joined as a defendant by the district court. He relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1), which states: 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 double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest. Citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v. New Mexico, 131 F.3d 1379, 1383 (10th Cir. 1997), he argues that the issue of indispensability can be raised at any time, Aplt. Br. at 55, perhaps suggesting that we must consider the matter even though not raised below. Birmingham, however, labors under a fundamental misunderstanding of Rule 19. It is not a means by which a plaintiff can join a truly liable defendant if he has mistakenly sued innocent parties. See 4 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 19.02 (3d ed. 2010) (Rule 19 reflect[s] a policy decision that [in certain circumstances] other interestsprimarily the protection of other parties and absenteesoutweigh the interest in plaintiff autonomy [in structuring the litigation].). Rule 19 has no application here because even without adding Cellco as a party, (1) the district court could accord complete relief among existing parties, Fed. R.Civ.P. 19(a)(1)(A), by dismissing the claims against the nonculpable defendants; (2) Cellco is not prejudiced in any way by the failure to be joined; and (3) there is no risk that an existing party would be subject to inconsistent obligations. Accordingly, we reject Birmingham's Rule 19 argument.