Opinion
No. CV-06-2704-PHX-JAT.
April 28, 2008
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Rule 19 Motion to Join Plaintiffs Zovko's, Coghlan's and Sysak's Spouses as Parties or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Plaintiffs Zovko's, Coghlan's and Sysak's Claims for Failure to Name an Indispensable Party (Doc. # 76). The Court has considered Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 6), Plaintiffs' Response (Doc. # 85), and Defendant's Reply (Doc. # 89). For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion in part as to joining Plaintiff Zovko's, Coghlan's, and Sysak's spouses as party plaintiffs and deny the Motion in part as to dismissing Plaintiffs Zovko's, Coghlan's, and Sysak's claims for failure to name an indispensable party.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Edward Kinnally, Charles Zovko, William Coghlan, and Kevin Sysak all were employed by Rogers Corporation ("Rogers") for varying periods of time and began working for the Durel Division of Rogers at the time of its creation in 2003. (Doc. # 6, at 5.) While working at Durel, all of the Plaintiffs were over the age of forty. ( Id.) On or about October 5, 2004, Rogers terminated all of the Plaintiffs. ( Id.) Plaintiffs brought suit against Rogers claiming age discrimination under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 — 634, and seek damages, including back pay and front pay. (Doc. # 6 , at 8.) Plaintiffs Zovko, Coghlan, and Sysak are married, however, their spouses are not currently parties to this lawsuit. ( Id. at 3 — 4.)
Rogers moves to join Plaintiff Zovko's spouse, Dragica Zovko, Plaintiff Coghlan's spouse, Cheryl Foster, and Plaintiff Sysak's spouse, April B. Sysak, as party plaintiffs or in the alternative, to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. (Doc. # 76, at 2.) Rogers argues that Plaintiffs' spouses and marital communities are indispensable parties under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A. Legal Standard
"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 governs the question of whether a person not a party to a suit should be joined because he is necessary for a more complete settlement of the dispute." Cutrona v. Sun Health Corp., No. CV 06-02184-PHX-MHM, 2007 WL 4150210, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2007). Rule 19 in relevant part provides:
(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. (1) Required Party. 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; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest . . . (2) Joinder by Court Order. If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a) (emphasis added). The absence of necessary parties under Rule 19 may be properly raised by any party "at any stage in the proceeding." CP Nat'l Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 928 F.2d 905, 911 — 12 (9th Cir. 1991); Weimer v. Maricopa County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 184 F.R.D. 309, 310 — 11 (D. Ariz. 1998). "An entity's status as a `necessary' party is not judged by any prescribed formula, but instead `can only be determined in the context of particular litigation.'" CP Nat'l Corp., 928 F.2d at 12 (quoting Provident Tradesmens Bank Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 118 (1968)).
Under Arizona law, a "judgment against one spouse does not bind the community." Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane, 676 P.2d 669, 670 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1984). Both spouses must be sued jointly in order for a plaintiff to hold the marital community accountable for an obligation. Id. At least three other courts in this district have held that a plaintiff's spouse may be properly joined as a necessary party under Rule 19(a) in order to protect the spouse's interests and for the purpose of permitting the defendant to seek attorneys' fees and costs against the marital community. Cutrona, 2007 WL 4150210, at *1; Henson v. Air Nat'l Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test Ctr., No. CV 06-526-TUC-FRZ, 2007 WL 2903993, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2007); Weimer, 184 F.R.D. at 310-11. The "preferable method" of protecting a plaintiff's spouse's interests is to join them as a party plaintiff. Weimer, 184 F.R.D. at 311.
B. Discussion
Here, Rogers alleges that Plaintiffs' spouses are necessary parties to the matter and should be joined as party plaintiffs under Rule 19(a) because in their absence Rogers cannot be granted complete relief. (Doc. # 76, at 2.) Rogers alleges that it may be entitled to recover some or all of its attorneys' fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in the event that Plaintiffs do not prevail in their lawsuit. (Doc. # 76, at 2.) Under Arizona law, Plaintiffs' spouses must be joined as party plaintiffs for the marital community to be bound under a judgment awarding attorneys' fees to Rogers. Spudnuts, 676 P.2d at 670. Thus, Rogers states that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to seek a legal award that would benefit their marital communities, while also insulating the communities from a potential award of attorneys' fees and costs to Rogers. (Doc. # 76, at 2.)
Rogers also alleges that Plaintiffs' spouses are necessary parties to the litigation in order to protect the spouses' legal interests in the alleged damages sought by Plaintiffs. (Doc. # 76, at 4.) Plaintiffs seek to recover lost wages, which are considered to be community property in Arizona. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-211; Shaw v. Greer, 194 P.2d 430, 431 (Ariz. 1948). Rogers argues that Plaintiffs' spouses should be joined in order to protect the spouses' interests from being impaired. (Doc. # 76, at 4.)
Plaintiffs contend that their spouses need not be joined as party plaintiffs and have raised three arguments to support this contention. Plaintiffs first allege that Rogers has no reason to protect Plaintiffs' spouses' interests. (Doc. # 85, at 3.) Plaintiffs argue that there has been no showing that they are not adequately protecting their spouses' interests in the case. ( Id.)
In Weimer, the district court found that the preferable method of protecting the plaintiff's spouse's interests in the claim for lost wages was to join the spouse as a party plaintiff, despite the defendants presenting no evidence that the plaintiff was not adequately representing his spouse's interests. 184 F.R.D. at 311. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' spouses have an interest in the case and, consequently, may be improperly impaired if they are not joined as party plaintiffs. Id. at *2. Accordingly, Rogers need not show that Plaintiffs are not adequately protecting their spouses' interests in the case in order to join them as party plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs next argue that Rogers will not be denied "complete relief" under Rule 19 if the Plaintiffs' spouses are not joined to the case because attorneys' fees are only available if a claim was frivolous. Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978); (Doc. # 85, at 4 n. 3.) Plaintiffs assert that it is unlikely that Rogers would be able to meet this standard. (Doc. # 85, at 4 n. 3.)
In Henson, the district court held that a plaintiff's spouse should be joined as a party in order to accord full relief to the defendants, based on the "possibility" that the defendants could prevail on a claim for attorneys' fees. 2007 WL 2903993, at *6 n. 6. Here, like Henson, Rogers must seek to recover jointly from Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' spouses in order to recover from the marital communities. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs' spouses must be joined to bind the marital community and afford Rogers complete relief under a judgment awarding it attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs' third argument states that the Motion should be denied as a result of Rogers's undue delay in filing without good cause. (Doc. # 85, at 4.) Plaintiffs allege that Rogers's Motion comes at the end of the discovery period and long after the deadlines to amend the pleadings. ( Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs rely upon two cases from other circuits where the courts denied Rule 19 motions as untimely. Ne. Drilling, Inc. v. Inner Space Servs., Inc., 243 F.3d 25, 36-37 (1st Cir. 2001); Gil Enters. v. DeIvy, 79 F.3d 241, 247-48 (2d Cir. 1996). This Court finds that while these cases are somewhat relevant, they are distinguishable. In Gil Enters., the Second Circuit denied a Rule 19 Motion to join an indispensable party because the moving party waited until the close of trial to file the Motion. 79 F.3d at 247. And, in Ne. Drilling, the First Circuit denied the defendants' Rule 19 Motion to join an additional party because the moving party waited until after the deadline to join additional parties as specified in the pretrial scheduling order. 243 F.3d at 37.
Unlike Gil Enters., Rogers's Motion was filed well before trial. Also, unlike Ne. Drilling, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order here did not specifically address adding new parties. But the Rule 16 Scheduling Order in this case did state a deadline for filing an amended complaint, which has passed. To add new parties would serve to amend the Complaint. Nonetheless, rather than dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for failing to name an indispensable party, this Court finds that joining the parties is more appropriate. Rogers has conceded that this joinder will not necessitate more discovery. (Doc. # 89, at 5.) Joining Plaintiffs' spouses therefore will have no impact on the timely disposition of this case. Further, the Ninth Circuit permits the absence of a necessary party to be properly raised at any stage in the proceeding. CP Nat'l Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 928 F.2d 905, 911-12 (9th Cir. 1991); McShan v. Sherrill, 283 F.2d 462, 464 (9th Cir. 1960). Consequently, this Court finds that the Motion should not be denied as untimely.
Plaintiffs' spouses are necessary parties to this case under Rule 19(a) and should be joined as party plaintiffs in order to protect Plaintiffs' spouses' interests and because in their absence complete relief cannot be afforded to Rogers. Thus, Rogers's request for dismissal based on Plaintiffs' failure to name an indispensable party is denied as moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion (Doc. # 76) as to joining Plaintiff Zovko's spouse, Dragica Zovko, Plaintiff Coghlan's spouse, Cheryl Foster, and Plaintiff Sysak's spouse, April B. Sysak, as party plaintiffs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended Complaint adding their spouses as co-plaintiffs per this Order by May 5, 2008.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion (Doc. # 76) as to dismissing Plaintiffs Zovko's, Coghlan's, and Sysak's claims for failure to name an indispensable party.