Mark Young v. Jeffrey Vrechek

MEMORANDUM

Mark Young (“Young”) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of this case based on his failure to join his brother, Keith Young, a necessary party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7); 19. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because Young failed to join a required party and cannot do so without defeating diversity, we affirm.

We review a district court’s joinder decision for abuse of discretion, but review underlying legal conclusions de novo. Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861 , 879 (9th Cir.2004). Young argues that the district court’s legal rulings ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent and that Rule 19 is impermissibly jurisdictional, in contravention of Rule 82 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We reject both arguments.

Young’s argument that the district court’s ruling was inconsistent with’ Lincoln Property Company v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 , 126 S.Ct. 606 , 163 L.Ed.2d 415 (2005), fails because Roche is inapposite to this case. Roche concerned diversity jurisdiction under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 , not dismissal for failure to join a necessary party under Rule 19. The Court in Roche explicitly disclaimed…