Opinion ID: 2489851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Propriety of Cook's Joinder

Text: Scrushy challenges Cook's joinder in the action on the basis of the document filed on October 12, 2005, styled joinder of plaintiff. More specifically, he contends: [B]ecause Tucker failed to name and join [Cook] in his original complaint, he was required to either: (1) file a motion to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15[, Ala. R. Civ. P.], or (2) pursuant to Rule 21, [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] to file a motion to add [Cook] as plaintiff and obtain an order granting the addition. Tucker took neither action and, therefore, [Cook] was not properly added as an additional plaintiff in Tucker's derivative action.... Consequently, the trial court erred in holding that Tucker had the authority to bring and prosecute claims against Scrushy for events that happened before August 18, 1998. Scrushy was prejudiced by this error and the judgment of the trial court is due to be reversed. Scrushy's brief, at 83-84 (emphasis added). To be sure, Tucker did not file a motion to add [Cook] as plaintiff and obtain an order granting the addition. However, in its January 3, 2006, order entering a partial summary judgment, which ordered Scrushy to return $47,828,106, representing the bonuses paid for the years 1997-2002, the trial court stated: Another shareholder, [Cook], which held its HealthSouth shares continuously since 1993, joined as plaintiff herein under [Ala. R. Civ.P.] Rule 20(a) on October 12, 2005, and adopted Tucker's complaint in its entirety. (Emphasis added.) Thus, even before the appeal of the bonus case, the trial court sanctioned the proffered joinder and rejected Scrushy's challenge to Tucker's standing to complain of alleged wrongdoing for the period prior to his stock purchase, i.e., prior to August 18, 1998. It is well settled: Rule 21, Ala. R. Civ. P., provides, in pertinent part, that `[p]arties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just,' and this Court has held that the trial court is given `broad discretion' when determining whether to add or drop a party. Wood v. City of Huntsville, 384 So.2d 1081, 1083 (Ala.1980). See also State Highway Department v. Morgan, 584 So.2d 499, 502 (Ala.1991). Wiggins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 686 So.2d 218, 220 (Ala.1996). Indeed, Scrushy concedes that the trial court could join [Cook] on its own motion, provided it had subject-matter jurisdiction. Reply brief, at 25. Because that is essentially what the trial court did in recognizing Cook's presence as a plaintiff, and because we have already held in Part II.A. of this opinion that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction at all stages of this action, we find no merit in Scrushy's challenge to Cook's joinder.