M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff alleges the following facts in its First Amended Complaint. [Doc. 7]
[Doc. 7]
The circumstances leading to the present Motion are set out in this Court's order entered on August 7, 2017 [Doc. 60]. In sum, the Court found that it did "not have sufficient evidence from which to determine that there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendants, as is required for subject matter jurisdiction over this matter" because it was unclear from Plaintiff's filings whether Defendant Provencio was a citizen of New Mexico. [Doc. 60] The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to "show cause in writing . . . why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." [Doc. 60] In response, Plaintiff filed the present Motion, stating that "Plaintiff is unable to satisfy [the Court's request to demonstrate that Defendant Provencio is a citizen of New Mexico] and thus moves for her dismissal."
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 governs joinder of parties in these circumstances:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.
Plaintiff acknowledges that, as a passenger in the insured vehicle, Defendant Provencio has an interest in this declaratory judgment action for determination of coverage. [Doc. 63] However, Plaintiff argues, Defendant Provencio's absence would not prevent complete relief for the remaining parties under Rule 19(a)(1)(A). Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that, although Defendant Provencio has an interest, resolution of the matter would not impair her interest or expose Plaintiff to multiple obligations. [Doc. 63]
Generally, "all interested parties should be joined in a declaratory judgment action whenever possible." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 518 F.2d 292, 296 (10th Cir. 1975). However, joinder in declaratory judgment actions is governed by Rule 19. Id. at 294. In addition, declaratory judgment is not binding against those not joined as parties. Id. at 295. Hence, the Court must determine 1) whether Defendant Provencio is required to be joined if feasible under Rule 19(a) and, if so, whether the action may fairly proceed in her absence under Rule 19(b).
The Court finds the following:
1). Defendant Provencio, as an alleged passenger in the insured vehicle, is an interested party to this declaratory judgment action for determination of coverage;
2). Dismissal of Defendant Provencio will not impair the ability of the remaining defendants to protect their rights;
3). Because a judgment in this matter would not be binding on her, dismissal of Defendant Provencio will not impair her ability to seek coverage in a separate suit. Id. (stating that "[a]s a practical matter, a determination would not impair or impede [the non-party's] ability to protect his interest" and that he "could relitigate this matter, and we believe any interest he has could be protected then");
4). The risk that dismissal of Defendant Provencio will expose Plaintiff to multiple obligations is low because 1) the present suit seeks only a determination of coverage under the policy covering the 2000 Chevrolet Malibu, and 2) although Defendant Provencio might institute a separate suit for coverage, the outcome of that suit will be a determination of coverage only as to Defendant Provencio. See id. (noting that, in assessing the risk of multiple obligations, the courts "are required to look to practical possibilities more than theoretical possibilities in considering possible prejudice to parties" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Moreover, Defendant Provencio has shown no interest in the present lawsuit in spite of Plaintiff's efforts to locate and serve her, including through service by publication. See id. (stating that the risk of multiple obligation was low because, inter alia, the non-party there "had shown no interest or concern with the litigation"); RFF Family P'ship, LP v. Link Dev., LLC, 849 F.Supp.2d 131, 137 (D. Mass. 2012) ("A court should nevertheless hesitate to require a party to remain in a declaratory judgment action if that party is only tangentially involved with the controversy at issue and does not wish to be caught up in the litigation."). [See Doc. 56, pg. 6-9]
5). Dismissal of Defendant Provencio will preserve diversity jurisdiction in this Court. See Lenon v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 136 F.3d 1365, 1371 (10th Cir. 1998) ("[I]t is well-settled that [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 21 invests district courts with authority to allow a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped at any time [to preserve diversity jurisdiction], even after judgment has been rendered." (quoting Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832 (1989)).
Based on the foregoing findings, the Court further finds that Defendant Provencio is not a party required to be joined if feasible under Rule 19(a). Therefore, there is no need to address Rule 19(b).
Consequently, Plaintiff's Motion will be granted.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court