Here, there was evidence in the record from which the jury could have determined, as it did, that Bell is entitled to 100 percent of the royalties in the first instance. There was testimony that Bell is the administrator of 100 percent of the royalties and is responsible for accounting to Tag Team. As such, the jury could have determined that Bell was properly awarded 100 percent of the royalties, from which it could pay Tag Team its share. See, e.g., Edgenet, Inc. v. GS1 AIBSL, No. 09–CV–65, 2010 WL 55843, at *5 (E.D.Wis. Jan. 5, 2010) (“In a case where infringement damages are awarded to only one of two co-owners of a copyright, redress is properly sought through a suit between the co-owners and not through further litigation against the defendant.” ) (citation omitted); Copyright.net Music Publ'g. LLC v. MP3.com, 256 F.Supp.2d 214, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (upholding damage awards that contained more than the plaintiff's share, ruling that the proper resolution was for the co-owner to bring an action against the prevailing plaintiff for its share).

In the alternative to all of its arguments against dismissal, Borg-Warner argues that it should be allowed to amend its complaint, if the Court were to determine that dismissal would otherwise be appropriate. (Docket #18, at 3 (citing Edgenet, Inc. v. GS1 AIBSL, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 482, 2010 WL 55843 (E.D. Wis. 2010))).

28 U.S.C.App., p. 595.Id. (empahasis added); see also, Jernryd v. Nilsson, No. 84 C 7551, 1985 WL 3590 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 1985) (in a RICO action; plaintiff was not required to join all co-conspirators because their liability is joint and several); Edgenet, Inc. v. GS1 AIBSL, No. 09-cv-65, 2010 WL 55843 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 5, 2010) (joint and severally liable parties are merely permissive in a RICO action). Therefore, in light of the aforementioned authority and Plaintiffs' allegations, the Chinese Defendants are not necessary parties pursuant to Rule 19 because they are jointly and severally liable.

Since Irwin's motion to amend her complaint will be granted, the amended complaint, rather than her original complaint, is the relevant pleading with respect to Belimed's motion for judgment on the pleadings. See, e.g., Edgenet, Inc. v. GS1 AIBSL, No. 09-CV-65, 2010 WL 55843 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 5, 2010) (finding defendant's motion to dismiss moot where plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint and the amended complaint remedied the alleged deficiencies); Sasse v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., No. 3:06-cv-121-DRH, 2006 WL 1722369 (S.D. Ill. June 22, 2006) (same). A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is treated the same way as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which means that it will be granted only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would support her claim for relief. Forseth v. Vill. of Sussex, 199 F.3d 363, 368 (7th Cir. 2000).