Opinion ID: 2290920
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Owner Could Have Been Joined.

Text: Under Rule 19, once a trial judge determines that an absent person's presence would be desirable, the judge shall order that [the person] be made a party. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 19(a). The trial judge in the instant case did not make an explicit determination whether the owner's joinder was feasible; the judge simply noted that the owner was no longer a party to this action; the action, as to that defendant, having been dismissed with prejudice by Order of the Court, pursuant to a settlement agreement between that defendant and [appellant].... We are unable to conclude, however, that appellant's settlement with the owner made it infeasible for the trial judge to order the owner joined. Rule 19 describes a person who is not subject to service of process as an example of a person whose joinder is not feasible. [4] The Rule later states that the court should consider dismissal only if a person whose presence would be desirable cannot be made a party. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 19(b). Thus, given the explicit language of the Rule, we join the federal courts and interpret Rule 19 to require a trial judge to order joinder whenever possible. See, e.g., Willingham v. Lawton, 555 F.2d 1340, 1345-46 (6th Cir.1977) (refusing to order dismissal when joinder was possible); JTG of Nashville, Inc. v. Rhythm Band, Inc., 693 F.Supp. 623, 627-28 (M.D.Tenn.1988) (same); see also Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 232 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 722 F.2d 779 (1983) (upholding dismissal under Rule 19(b) where defendants, over whom court lacked personal jurisdiction, had proprietary interest in lease which Naartex sought to cancel and alternative forum was available). Appellees' claim of impossibility rests on appellant's settlement agreement with the [owner] and subsequent dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the [owner]. Appellees seem to assert that joining the owner would have been futile because the owner might have been able to assert a successful res judicata defense. The trial judge had no indication from the owner, however, that it would pursue a res judicata defense if joined. Mere speculation about an absent party's possible defenses cannot form the basis for concluding joinder is infeasible, given the clear language of the Rule and accompanying advisory committee note. See Fed.R. Civ.P. 19, advisory committee's note to the 1966 amendment (if [an absent person needed for a just adjudication] is amenable to service of process and his joinder would not deprive the court of jurisdiction ... he should be joined as a party; and if he has not been joined, the court should order him to be brought into the action). Moreover, there are other good reasons to doubt that ordering the owner's joinder would have been futile in the instant case. In view of the settlement stipulation between appellant and the owner, a real possibility exists that the owner would not have objected to being added to the lawsuit. The owner was in the position of a stakeholder. In the stipulation of settlement, appellant agreed to dismiss with prejudice all of his claims against the owner, in exchange for $14,000. The owner also agreed that if appellant ultimately prevailed in his declaratory judgment action against appellees, the owner would then convey the disputed units to appellant. Thus, the owner effectively agreed to convey the apartments to whichever party the court determined had the right to purchase them. Cf. Habib v. Miller, supra, 284 A.2d at 57 (settlement agent was not an indispensable party because he testified that the firm would pay the money to whomever the court directed). [5] Furthermore, the stipulation made clear the owner's recognition that other claims were pending and the stipulation might not eliminate the need for the other claims to be pursued. Even if the owner ultimately raised a valid res judicata defense, ordering its joinder might still have cured all of the prejudice claimed by appellees. Appellees assert that the owner's presence was necessary in order to prevent the possibility of future litigation between themselves and the owner. Had the trial judge ordered the owner joined in some capacity, however, see, e.g., Super.Ct.Civ.R. 19(a), appellees would have been able to raise cross-claims against the owner to protect their interests, as appellees admit in their brief. Appellees might, for example, have sought a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to purchase the two units. The owner would have been unable to assert res judicata as a defense to such a claim, and appellees have offered no other reason why all of the prejudice they claim would not have been cured.