Can I forward this and your next one to my class? We just got through with
our initial tour through joinder?
Charles A. Sullivan
Professor of Law
Seton Hall Law School
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102
(973) 642-8870
Edward A Hartnett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Discussion cc:
list for con law Subject: Rule 19 and California
recall
professors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
v.ucla.edu>
09/18/2003 01:14 PM
Please respond to
Discussion list for
con law professors
Am I right to think that in an action to enjoin the holding of an election,
all of the candidates are necessary parties under FRCP 19(a)(2)(ii)? Isn't
each candidate "so situated that the disposition of the action in the
person's absence may as a practical matter impair or impede the person's
ability to protect" their interests?
A court of appeals may raise the FRCP 19 issue sua sponte. As the Ninth
Circuit once put it, "Rule 19 is designed to protect the interests of
absent parties, as well as those ordered before the court, from multiple
litigation, inconsistent judicial determinations or the impairment of
interests or rights. The absence of 'necessary' parties may be raised by
reviewing courts sua sponte. The issue can be properly raised at any stage
in the proceeding."
CP Nat. Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 928 F.2d 905, 911 (9th Cir.,
1991) (citation omitted).
Ed Hartnett
Seton Hall
