Court Opinion

ID: 9540966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:21:16.996011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:55.435168
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
Unlike Federal Trial Rule 20, the Indiana Rule contains the following provision:
"[Thhe defendant may make any persons who could be joined under this rule parties by alleging their interest therein with a prayer that their rights in the controversy be determined, along with any counterclaim or cross-claim against them, if any, as if they had been originally joined as parties."
Under this provision and in light of the substantial risk of multiple liability upon inconsistent claims by Meurer's representative on the one hand and the Kolings on the other, the trial court abused its discretion in denying joinder. Alumax Extrusions, Inc. v. Evans Transportation Co. (1984) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 1165, The subsequent filing of the federal lawsuit and its pendency do not militate against application of Indiana's joinder rule.
I would reverse and direct the trial court to permit joinder.