Opinion
00 C 2323
October 3, 2001
Defendant's motion to compel joinder [23] is denied. Although Abex Roofing Company's presence may be helpful to the resolution of this case, I cannot say that would be impossible to afford the parties complete relief in its absence. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)(1). Plaintiff represents that it can distinguish the damages caused by Abex's negligence from damages allegedly caused by A-Midwest Board-Up. This seems reasonable given the chronology of events laid out in the Complaint. Plaintiff is free to makes its case against the party of its choosing. If defendant is concerned about the effect that Abex's absence may have on its interests, it may join Abex as an additional defendant.