The opinion of the court was delivered by: McVerry, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Presently before the Court for disposition are the MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN PARTIES SHARON VERNICK, JUPITER CORPORATION AND KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., AS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(7) AND 19(a)(1)(A), with briefs in support, filed by Defendants Susan Callihan and Sarah LeaAnn Baucom (Documents Nos. 84, 85, 86, and 87),*fn1 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN PARTIES (Document No. 96), and the REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SUSAN CALLIHAN'S MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILURE TO JOIN PARTIES (Document No. 98).
The issues have been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Motions to Dismiss for Failure to Join Parties will be denied.
A party may move to dismiss a case for failure to join a party under Rule 19. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss, the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc. v. C.R. England, Inc., 669 F. Supp.2d 613, 618 (W.D. Pa. 2009). A court making a Rule 19 determination may consider evidence outside the pleadings. Id. The moving party bears the burden of showing that a nonparty is both necessary and indispensable. Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) provides in pertinent part, as follows:
A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:
(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties.
To decide whether joinder of a party is required, a court must first decide whether that party is a necessary party. Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc. v. Sheppard Niles, Inc., 11 F.3d 399, 404 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Gen. Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 500 F.3d 306, 312 (3d Cir. 2007) ("we must first determine whether the absent insurers should be joined as 'necessary' parties under Rule 19(a)"). If the party should be joined but joinder is not feasible because it would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court must then decide whether the absent party is indispensable. Janney Montgomery Scott, 11 F.3d at 404. If the absent party is indispensable, the litigation cannot proceed. Id. If however, the absent party is not necessary under Rule 19(a), the court need not reach the question of whether the absent party is indispensable. Id.
Defendants contend that Jupiter Corporation ("Jupiter"), KeyPoint Government Solutions, Inc. ("KeyPoint"), and former USIS employee Sharon Vernick ("Vernick") are "supposed main participants in this alleged misuse of proprietary and confidential information" and "[c]omplete relief cannot be granted absent Vernick, Jupiter and KeyPoint . . . ." Callihan Br. at ¶¶ 10 and 19(f).
The Court finds Defendants' arguments to be without merit for three reasons. First, as Plaintiff aptly points out, the claims against Callihan and Baucom are based principally on their alleged breaches of fiduciary and confidentiality obligations to USIS which are set forth in their respective employment agreements with USIS. Neither Vernick, Jupiter, nor KeyPoint are parties to those agreements, and thus, are not necessary, let alone indispensable, to the resolution of the claims of USIS against Callihan and Baucom.
Next, Defendants appear to argue that because Vernick, Jupiter and/or KeyPoint may have engaged in similar misdeeds and/or bad conduct these non-parties are necessary and indispensable to this litigation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a similar argument in Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc., where it held that joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties. Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc., 11 F.3d at 409 (quoting Pujol v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 877 F.3d 132, 136 (1st Cir. 1989), "The mere fact [that] Party A, in a suit against ...