United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
BARCLAY SURRICK, J.
before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) and
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint. For the following reasons, the Motion for Joinder
is denied, and the Motion to Amend is granted.
case arises out of a highway collision between
Defendant's vehicle and Plaintiff Julio Orengo. On May
29, 2016, at 1:04 a.m., Plaintiff alleges that he was walking
on Pulaski Highway in Bear, Delaware. (Compl. ¶ 5, ECF
No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that while walking on the highway,
Defendant's vehicle ran into him, causing serious
injuries. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 12.) Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant was negligently operating the vehicle.
(Id. ¶ 9.)
filed a Complaint in this Court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania and
Defendant is a business registered in Kansas. (Id.
¶¶ 1, 2.) Defendant filed its Answer on October 27,
2016. (Def.'s Answer, ECF No. 5.) On
November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Joinder and Memorandum in Support of the Motion. (Pl.'s
Mot. Joinder, ECF No. 14; Pl.'s Mem. Joinder, ECF No.
14.) The same day, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to
Amend and Memorandum in Support of the Motion. (Pl.'s
Mot. Amend, ECF No. 15; Pl.'s Mem. Amend, ECF No. 15.) On
December 9, 2016, Defendant filed a Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder and Memorandum in Support
of Defendant's Response. (Def.'s Resp., ECF No. 16;
Def.'s Mem., ECF No. 16.)
Motion for Joinder seeks to join as a party the alleged
driver of Defendant's vehicle, Matthew Dale Bush
(“Bush”). (Pl.'s Mot. Joinder 2.)
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend seeks to amend the Complaint
to add a claim of negligent entrustment against Defendant.
(Pl.'s Mot. Amend 2.)
Motion for Joinder
Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) states the circumstances under
which a third party
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's
ability to protect the interest; or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of
incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent
obligations because of the interest.
determining whether an absent party must be joined under Rule
19(a), a court must determine if it is “a necessary
party who should be joined in the action.” Bank of
Am. Nat'l Trust and Sav. Ass'n. v. Hotel Rittenhouse
Assocs., 844 F.2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing
Abel v. Am. Art Analog, Inc., 838 F.2d 691, 695 (3d
Cir. 1998)). If the court determines that the absent party is
necessary, then the court must determine if it is feasible
for the party to be joined. Id. at 1053-54. If the
court determines that the absent party is not necessary,
“the inquiry need go no further.” Id. at
1054. The moving party has the burden of proving why the
party is required to be joined under Rule 19(a). United
States v. Payment Processing Ctr., LLC, No. 06-0725,
2006 WL 2990392, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2006).
determine whether the absent party is necessary, a court must
first determine whether “complete relief” can be
granted to the existing parties, absent the joinder.
Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc. v. Shepard Niles,
Inc., 11 F.3d 399, 405 (3d Cir. 1993). “Complete
relief . . . refers to relief as between the persons already
parties, and not as between a party and the absent person
whose joinder is sought.” Sindia Expedition, Inc.
v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, Known as The Sindia,
895 F.2d 116, 121 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal citations
omitted). A court must then determine if a third party would
be subjected to “needless multiple litigation.”
Id. at 122 (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted). 2.Analysis Plaintiff argues that Bush must
be joined to this matter under Rule 19(a) as a necessary and
indispensable party. (Pl.'s Mem. Joinder 3.) Plaintiff
argues that without Bush the Court cannot provide complete
relief to Plaintiff. (Id.) As support, Plaintiff
states that Bush was the person driving Defendant
Berkel's vehicle, and at the time was an employee and/or
agent of Defendant Berkel. (Pl.'s Mot. Joinder 2.)
Plaintiff also argues that the “interests of justice
and judicial ...