Bardomiano Aguilar & Rosa Aguilar, Etc. v. Los Angeles County, L.A. county/u.s.c. Medical Center

Bardomiano and Rosa Aguilar appeal the dismissal of their medical malpractice action. The district judge based the dismissal on the Aguilars’ failure to join an indispensable party, their son Jaime, whose join-der would defeat diversity jurisdiction. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 2, 1983, appellants Rosa and Bardomiano Aguilar filed a medical mal *1091 practice suit against appellees County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County/U.S.C. Medical Center, and several medical center employees (“County”). The Aguilars alleged that the County’s negligence in providing medical care to their minor child, Jaime, caused him to sustain permanent brain damage. Under California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) § 376, which provides that parents may maintain an action for injury to their child, the Aguilars sought to recover pre-majority special damages for Jaime’s injuries. 1 The Aguilars alleged that they were citizens of Mexico and El Salvador and that the defendants were citizens of California and based the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. Their son Jaime, a California citizen, was not named as a plaintiff in the complaint.

On…

dissenting:

The majority reasons that because Jaime may be collaterally estopped, this is sufficient to uphold the district court’s finding Jaime has an interest in his parents' action which could be impaired if that action goes forward without him as a party. I dissent.

I believe the majority, in adopting the reasoning in Lopez v. Martin Luther King, Jr. Hospital, 97 F.R.D. 24 (C.D.Cal.1983), has put the cart before the horse. In Lopez , the district court stated what was believed to be the relevant inquiry as follows: “[I]f there is a possibility that collateral estoppel will be applied by the California court, then it is axiomatic that the child has an interest in this action.” 97 F.R.D. at 30 .

The majority in this case employed this exact reasoning, finding that this “interest” determination is properly construed “ ‘from a practical perspective, not through the adoption of strict legal definitions and technicalities.’ ” (Opinion at p. 182, citing Lopez v. Martin Luther King, Jr. Hospital, 97 F.R.D. at 29 ).

While the question of joinder is one of federal procedure, in diversity cases the *1095 standards must be applied to the rights and interests that are derived from and…

751 F.2d 1089 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1249 Bardomiano AGUILAR & Rosa Aguilar, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, L.A. County/U.S.C. Medical Center, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 83-6428. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 3, 1984. Decided Jan. 15, 1985. Manuel Hidalgo, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants. Martin Stein, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before DUNIWAY, FERGUSON, and NELSON, Circuit Judges. NELSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Bardomiano and Rosa Aguilar appeal the dismissal of their medical malpractice action. The district judge based the dismissal on the Aguilars' failure to join an indispensable party, their son Jaime, whose joinder would defeat diversity jurisdiction. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 On August 2, 1983, appellants Rosa and Bardomiano Aguilar filed a medical malpractice suit against appellees County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County/U.S.C. Medical Center, and several medical center employees ("County"). The Aguilars alleged that the County's…