Opinion ID: 1372929
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the order joining Ogden as a party ever vacated?

Text: Martech contends that the August 1, 1990 order joining Ogden as a party pursuant to Civil Rule 19 was never vacated. It thus contends that to the extent that the January 4, 1991 order ruled that Ogden was no longer a party, the order was in error. [16] It argues that whether Ogden was properly joined as a party under Civil Rule 19(a) is not an issue in this appeal. The trial court's May 25, 1991 order that Ogden was no longer a party to the lawsuit was based on a lack of existing claims against Ogden. Ogden's response to Martech's motion for clarification claimed that the August 1 order was not effective because Cummins refused to file a claim against Ogden as a co-defendant. [17] Martech contends that the trial court's adoption of Ogden's reasoning is evidenced by the fact that the trial court signed Ogden's lodged order without modification. The January 4 order, as explained in the clarifying order of May 25, implicitly vacated the August 1, 1990 order which joined Ogden as a co-defendant. It is not necessary for either the trial court or the parties to use the term vacate or any derivative thereof. We conclude that Judge Ripley's intention was to supersede the previous order.