A plaintiff must join as parties to the action all persons whose interests are so directly involved that the court cannot render a fair adjudication in their absence. (Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018)) ¶¶ 2:151 & 2:156. A party is indispensable where the plaintiff seeks a type of affirmative relief that, if granted would affect the interest of a third person not joined. (Sierra Club, Inc. v. Cal. Coastal Comm. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 495, 501.)
A motion for joinder has been interpreted to cover both “necessary” parties and “indispensable” ones. (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758.)
Indispensability is determined by considering the parties’ status when relief is to be entered or when the issue of indispensability is raised. (County of Imperial v. Super. Ct. (State Water Resources Control Bd.) (2007) 152 CA4th 13, 36.) “The controlling test for determining whether a person is an indispensable party is, ‘Where the plaintiff seeks some type of affirmative relief which, if granted, would injure or affect the interest of a third person not joined, that third person is an indispensable party.’” (Save Our Bay, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (1996) 42 Cal.4th 686, 692.)
Joinder of “necessary” parties may be ordered pursuant to “trial court discretion in which the court weighs factors of practical realities and other considerations.” (Id.; Hayes v. State Dept. of Developmental Services (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1523, 1529.)
Necessary parties should normally be joined in an action and the court will usually require them to be joined in order to carry out policy of complete determination and avoidance of multiplicity of suits, but the rule being one of equity is limited by considerations of fairness, convenience and practicability, and if it is impossible to find the necessary parties or impracticable to bring them in, the action may proceed as to those who are present. (Bank of Cal. Nat. Ass’n v. Super. Ct. in and for City and County of San Francisco (1940) 16 Cal.2d 516.)
Code of Civil Procedure, section 389 governs compulsory joinder, stating that a plaintiff is required to join as parties to the action any person whose interest is such that any judgment rendered in his or her absence might either:
(Code Civ. Proc., § 389(a); Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 785, 796; Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 808-809; Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.4th 438, 460-464.)
If any such persons are not named as parties to the lawsuit, the complaint must state their names (if known), and the reasons why they have not been joined. (Code Civ. Proc., § 389(c).)
The court’s decision on whether the action should proceed without the absent party will be based on the following factors:
(Code Civ. Proc., § 389(b); Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrig. Dist. (2001) 94 Cal.4th 1092, 1106-1108; Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 808.)
The court has substantial discretion in considering and weighing the above factors. (Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.4th 438, 461.) No one factor is determinative or more important than another. (Dreamweaver Andalusians, LLC v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America (2015) 234 Cal.4th 1168, 1176-1177.)
Procedure (5[ ed2008), Pleading, §972, citing Code Civi Procedure §389.) The demurer to the Complaint pursuant to Code Civ. Pro, § 430.10(d) is denied. Defendant may bring a noticed motion pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 389(a). E. Motion to Strike Code Civ. Proc, § 436, permits a court to strike portions of a complaint that are irrelevant, improper, or not drawn in conformity with the law and are not essential to cause of action.
Jan 22, 2021
Marin County, CA
Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) However, “[a]s a general rule, ‘[t]he automatic stay of section 362(a) protects only the debtor, property of the debtor or property of the estate. It does not protect non-debtor parties or their property. Thus, section 362(a) does not stay actions against guarantors, sureties, corporate affiliates, or other non-debtor parties liable on the debts of the debtor.’” (In re Chugach Forest Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1994) 23 F.3d 241, 246 quoting Advanced Ribbons & Office Prods. v. U.S.
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Instant Motion before the Court On December 18, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (a) to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to join an indispensable party, W Unlimited Inc., which is in possession of the funds that are subject of Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment action. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff opposed and filed evidentiary objections.
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Joinder to Defendant’s (Triumph Motorcycles (America) Limited) Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Demurrer), filed on 10-19-20 under ROA No. 19, is DENIED. Decker v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, 1392 (superseded by statute on other grounds—Hall v. Time Warner, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349) states, “Saltz did not bring his own special motion to strike but joined in UDR's motions.
Jan 19, 2021
Orange County, CA
If Cross-Defendant believes necessary parties must be joined, Cross-Defendant should make a motion to join those parties or dismiss the case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 389. The thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth affirmative defenses allege that public policy and statutory compliance bar enforcement of a private agreement. Cross-Defendant does not cite any law that this is an affirmative defense.
Jan 15, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
DEFENDANT SKB EXPERIENCES, LLC DBA MALIBU WINE HIKES’ MOTION Whether Joinder is Proper Defendant Hikes has filed a motion to join Defendants Semler and AAI’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. A party may join a motion for summary judgment by filing a separate statement that identifies the evidence demonstrating that the joining party is entitled to summary judgment. (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 636.)
Jan 11, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Code of Civil Procedure section 389 provides in part: (a) A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede
Jan 08, 2021
Real Property
Quiet Title
Los Angeles County, CA
Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (a), provides that a plaintiff must join a person as a party in the action if “(1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring
Jan 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) But, if a necessary and indispensable “cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable.” ((Id., § 389, subd. (b).)
Jan 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.
Dec 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
Code of Civil Procedure section 389 provides in part: (a) A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede
Dec 14, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Proc., § 389.) The City therefore argues Petitioner’s claim is moot. In reply, Petitioner argues that it has a valid beneficial interest, and that the City should not have issued the permit to SLOCal Roots, LLC, or alternatively it should have issued a conditional permit until final resolution of this action. Petitioner argues it does not lack standing because the City prematurely awarded its permit to a third-party following initiation of this action.
Dec 09, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Proc. § 389(a). Defendants, thus, fail to meet their burden to demonstrate that these potential plaintiffs are indispensable, rather than merely permissive, parties to this action. The court therefore OVERRULES this basis for the demurrers. B.
Dec 09, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) DISCUSSION The Court finds the motion must be denied and the proceedings must be stayed. Defendant Hertz is an indispensable party. Defendant Hertz is alleged to be liable for the negligent entrustment of an automobile with Defendant Park who, in turn, caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (Compl., pp. 4-5.)
Dec 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Proc. § 389, subd. (a).) “If a person is determined to qualify as a ‘necessary’ party under one of the standards outlined above, courts then determine if the party is also ‘indispensable.’ Under this analysis ‘the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable.
Dec 01, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants CDS, Providence and Karpeles (collectively, “CDS Defendants”) seek to dismiss Plaintiff Rosales’ Complaint based on Code of Civil Procedure section 389. Specifically, the CDS Defendants argue that SLG is an indispensable party who has not been and cannot be served since there is no California entity named as SLG. As such, the CDS Defendants contend that this action must be dismissed. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff Rosales served SLG and Defendant Christopher Stead by publication.
Nov 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
CDS Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff Moore’s Complaint based on Code of Civil Procedure section 389, 583.210 and 583.250. Specifically, the CDS Defendants argue that Stead Law Group, PLLC (“SLG”) is an indispensable party who has not been and cannot be served within 3 years since there is no such California entity. Generally, dismissal is mandatory where a plaintiff fails to serve a defendant with the summons and complaint within 3 years after the action is commenced. (Code Civ.
Nov 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
CCP § 389(a). Defendant makes no attempt to establish any of these factors as to Moreno or the auto shop.
Nov 10, 2020
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Ventura County, CA
(CCP § 389(a).) Section 389 limits compulsory joinder to those situations in which the “absence of a person may result in substantial prejudice to that person or to the parties already before the court.” (Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 438, 460.) “Whether a party is necessary and/or indispensable is a matter of trial court discretion in which the court weighs ‘factors of practical realities and other considerations.’” (Ibid.) Here, PMI Westerly is not an indispensable party.
Nov 09, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
It gives the nonparty the right to intervene in cases where his or her joinder has not yet been ordered, but could be ordered, under the CCP § 389 rules. (Id.) Here, Prospective Intervenor certainly has an interest relating to the transaction that is the subject of this litigation. Plaintiff, as Prospective Intervenor’s subrogee, assumed the legal right to attempt to collect from Defendant for payments to the third-party consulting firm. (Declaration of Patrick M. Maloney “Maloney Decl.” ¶¶ 6-10.)
Nov 05, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Specially appearing defendant Doe 2's motion for joinder is granted. Plaintiff has established that the settlement between him and Doe 2 and its related entities was reached in good faith and is within the ballpark as required by the Court in Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3 488, based on facts and evidence provided. Doe 2 is released from any liability of indemnity and contribution.
Nov 03, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.