indispensable party subject matter jurisdiction

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
bdepeyster
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:32 pm

indispensable party subject matter jurisdiction

Postby bdepeyster » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:01 pm

Fed Ct: If a party is indispensable to the suit but his joinder would destroy diversity (SMJx) must the case be dismissed or are there situations where the district ct may waive the lack of SMJx?

ogurty
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:16 am

Re: indispensable party subject matter jurisdiction

Postby ogurty » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:05 pm

Can't waive subject matter jurisdiction. Under Rule 19(b), the court decides whether to dismiss the action or continue without the "indispensable" party.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: indispensable party subject matter jurisdiction

Postby vamedic03 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:09 pm

bdepeyster wrote:Fed Ct: If a party is indispensable to the suit but his joinder would destroy diversity (SMJx) must the case be dismissed or are there situations where the district ct may waive the lack of SMJx?


You can never waive a lack of jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the only power the court has is to determine that it doesn't have jurisdiction.

random5483
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: indispensable party subject matter jurisdiction

Postby random5483 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:10 pm

ogurty wrote:Can't waive subject matter jurisdiction. Under Rule 19(b), the court decides whether to dismiss the action or continue without the "indispensable" party.


As stated above, you cannot waive subject matter jurisdiction. The court must decide whether to dismiss the case so it can be brought at an alternate location, or to continue the matter. Basically, the court must decide in equity and good conscience whether the action should proceed among the existing parties or whether it should be dismissed. If the party is truly "indispensable" the court will likely dismiss the case unless there is no alternate location where the case can be brought.


Also, as a side note, the current terminology in the FRCP is "required" not "indispensable." The "indispensable" and "necessary" requirements are how the rules were interpreted (also many states still use the framework). The new term seems to basically mean the same thing, but some interpret it to mean just "necessary" parties (ie. slightly lower standard).

random5483
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: indispensable party subject matter jurisdiction

Postby random5483 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:12 pm

vamedic03 wrote:
bdepeyster wrote:Fed Ct: If a party is indispensable to the suit but his joinder would destroy diversity (SMJx) must the case be dismissed or are there situations where the district ct may waive the lack of SMJx?


You can never waive a lack of jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the only power the court has is to determine that it doesn't have jurisdiction.



I think you mean you can never waive subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction can be waived since consent is one of the traditional basis of establishing personal jurisdiction. I know you probably referred to subject matter jurisdiction, but I want to be clear in case someone misinterprets what you said.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: indispensable party subject matter jurisdiction

Postby vamedic03 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:32 pm

random5483 wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:
bdepeyster wrote:Fed Ct: If a party is indispensable to the suit but his joinder would destroy diversity (SMJx) must the case be dismissed or are there situations where the district ct may waive the lack of SMJx?


You can never waive a lack of jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the only power the court has is to determine that it doesn't have jurisdiction.



I think you mean you can never waive subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction can be waived since consent is one of the traditional basis of establishing personal jurisdiction. I know you probably referred to subject matter jurisdiction, but I want to be clear in case someone misinterprets what you said.


To be more specific, I meant to say that a court can never waive jurisdiction. But to be nit picky, personal jurisdiction may only be waived by parties, not by the courts.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests