Opinion ID: 1435575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the joinder of the ncaa as a necessary party

Text: Rule 19 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the joinder of persons needed for just adjudication. It provides: (a) A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party. If he should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. (Emphasis added.) This provision of the rules of civil procedure reflects certain long-standing policies prevailing in equitable actions, such as the one now before the court, as described in Robinson v. Kind, 23 Nev. 330, 47 P. 1, 47 P. 977 (1896). In such cases, all persons with an interest in the subject matter of the suit are to be made parties `so that there may be a complete decree which shall bind them all.' 23 Nev. at 335, 47 P. at 2. If the interest of the absent parties `may be affected or bound by the decree, they must be brought before the court, or it will not proceed to a decree.' Id. If a defendant before the court may be subjected to future litigation, or danger of loss, under the decree, the absent person must be made a party. Id. at 335-36, 47 P. 1. As is shown by the mandatory language of Rule 19(a), the enforcement of the rule is not left to the parties themselves. As was said of the prior statute dealing with equitable actions, If there are other persons, not parties, whose rights must be ascertained and settled before the rights of the parties to the suit can be determined, then the statute is peremptory. The court must cause such persons to be brought in. It is not a matter of discretion, but of absolute judicial duty. The enforcement of this duty does not rest entirely upon the parties to the record. If they should neglect to raise the question and to apply for the proper order, the court, upon its own motion, will supply the omission, and will either directly bring in the new parties, or remand the cause in order that the plaintiff may bring them in. Robinson v. Kind, 23 Nev. at 338, 47 P. at 3-4. Thus the question of waiver is not appropriate to the determination of this issue, and the trial court or the appellate court may raise the issue sua sponte. Johnson v. Johnson, 93 Nev. 655, 572 P.2d 925 (1977). This is sound policy, for the rule thus protects the interest of the courts themselves in the efficacy and integrity of their own proceedings, as well as the interests of the parties. In the case at hand, it is clear from the pleadings, the evidence presented at trial, and the judgment, that the NCAA should have been joined in this action. First, the interest of the NCAA in the subject matter of this litigation was such that either the university would be affected, or the NCAA's ability to protect its interests would be impaired, and in either case further litigation of the controversy would be likely, should it proceed without joinder of the NCAA. As the situation now stands, regardless of the outcome of this litigation, the NCAA may claim a contractual right to bind the university to enforce the NCAA's decision by sanctions it deems appropriate. This is illustrated in the factual background of Regents of University of Minnesota v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 560 F.2d 352 (8th Cir.), cert. dismissed 434 U.S. 978, 98 S.Ct. 600, 54 L.Ed.2d 472 (1977), in which the university sought injunctive relief against NCAA sanctions. In that case, the university had been enjoined by a state court from declaring certain students ineligible, pursuant to an NCAA determination, without a prior university hearing comporting with due process. As a result of such hearings, the university refused to suspend the students. The NCAA then placed the university on indefinite suspension, including a ban on post-season play or television appearances for all sports, until the university complied with its directive to declare the students ineligible. The NCAA took the position that it could not permit an individual institution to retain either interpretive or enforcement authority over NCAA legislation. Id. at 360. [1] Respondent argues that the court need not be concerned with the university's position on this account, since the university will be insulated by the terms of the lower court's decree from compliance with the NCAA decision. If the university would be so protected, the NCAA would, to that extent, be unable to protect its interests in its enforcement proceedings. See Ky. H.S. Athl. Ass'n v. Hopkins Cty. Bd. of Ed., 552 S.W.2d 685 (Ky.App. 1977). An independent ground for requiring joinder in this case is provided by the directive of Rule 19(a) that a person be joined when complete relief cannot be accorded the parties before the court in his absence. A major objective of this provision is to have a final and complete determination of the controversy, not to determine issues piecemeal... . Investment Co. v. Reno Club, 66 Nev. 216, 222, 208 P.2d 297, 300 (1949). In this case, the controversy presented involves the NCAA directly, and cannot be completely and justly determined in its absence. The NCAA initiated and controlled the proceedings against UNLV which led to Tarkanian's suspension. The NCAA made the factual findings upon which Tarkanian's suspension was based. To consider the case as if it involved solely the relationship of the university and Tarkanian, or began with the university's notification to Tarkanian of its intent to hold a hearing regarding his proposed suspension, would require the plaintiff to forego constitutional claims to which he may well be entitled. Plaintiff's fundamental claim in this case is that he was denied his constitutional right to due process of law. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard `at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). It is clear that the meaningful factual determinations in this case, as well as the decision as to the penalty to be imposed, had been made by the NCAA before Tarkanian was afforded a hearing by UNLV. A court of equity, in particular, should not be foreclosed from recognizing this reality, and affording plaintiff the relief to which it may entitle him. As was observed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma of a similar attempt by the NCAA to insulate from judicial scrutiny actions it had taken which affected, through a member university, certain coaching employees: Courts are normally reluctant to interfere with the internal affairs of voluntary membership associations, however, in particular situations, where the considerations of [public] policy and justice are sufficiently compelling judicial scrutiny and relief are available. In dealing with an organization in which membership is an economic necessity, the courts must be particularly alert to the need for protecting the public welfare and advancing the interests of justice by reasonably safeguarding the individual's opportunity to earn a livelihood while not impairing the proper standards and objectives of the organization. The necessity of court action is apparent when the position of a voluntary association is so dominant in its field that membership in a practical sense is not voluntary but economically necessary. Bd. of Regents v. Nat. Collegiate Ath. Ass'n, 561 P.2d 499, 504 (Okla. 1977) (footnotes omitted). It is therefore clear that the instant case falls squarely within the mandate of NRCP 19(a). We note that the briefs of the parties have cited a number of cases from the federal jurisdictions discussing Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 19(b), which addresses the situation in which a party cannot be joined. In such a situation, considerable weight is given the positions taken during litigation by the parties themselves, and to the fact that reversal will require dismissal of the entire action. See esp., Provident Bank v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 88 S.Ct. 738, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968). In this case, however, there is no contention that the NCAA is not amenable to service of process or that its joinder would affect the jurisdiction of the court below. [2] In such circumstances, consideration of the issues raised by NRCP 19(b) is not warranted. See Robinson v. Kind, supra, 23 Nev. 330, 47 P. 977 (petition for rehearing). Tarkanian, UNLV and the NCAA, each for its own reasons, preferred the trial to proceed without the joinder of the NCAA. This course did not serve the interest of justice or comply with the requirement of NRCP 19(a). Remand of the action will, in this case, serve the interest of judicial efficiency by precluding subsequent litigation of the very issues now presented. We therefore reverse and remand for joinder of the NCAA and further proceedings. THOMPSON, MANOUKIAN and BATJER, JJ., concur.