Court Opinion

ID: 9447507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:36:47.585141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:04.603011
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge,
(dissenting in part and concurring in result).
I agree that the union involved is an indispensable party. However, the union was made a party plaintiff by means of the class suit filed by the named individual plaintiffs, pursuant to rule 23 (a) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties are agreed that, according to Illinois law, the union, an unincorporated association, cannot be sued as an entity. It was error to dismiss plaintiffs’ action for lack of an indispensable party. It is not absent; it is present in the case.
With some of the reasons given by Judge ENOCH (other than in reference to the presence of the union in the case) for affirmance, I concur and with some I disagree. However, I concur in the result affirming the judgment of the district court.