Indispensable Party - Injunctive Relief

Ex parte Advanced Disposal Services South, LLC, et al., [Ms. 1170320, Dec. 14, 2018] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2018). This decision by Justice Sellers (Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Main, Mendheim, JJ., concur; Parker, Shaw, and Bryan, JJ., dissent; and Wise, J., recuses) denies the plaintiff’s application for rehearing of the Court’s decision granting Advanced Disposal’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Macon Circuit Court to join the City of Tallassee as a necessary indispensable party or to dismiss the action.

In declining to rehear or reverse its decision on original submission, the Court noted that

[T]he City is an active participant in the factual assertions made in the complaint, and, without its joinder, Tarver cannot be accorded the relief he demands. Rule 19 contemplates that in situations where, as here, the plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, a court will look to whether it can fashion complete relief without joinder of the absent party. See, e.g., 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 19.03[2][c] (3d ed. 2014) (noting that courts will invoke the complete-relief clause as its sole basis for finding an absentee necessary in a situation where “the absentee’s participation will be required to provide injunctive relief to extant parties”); see also Rose v. Simms, No. 95 Civ. 1446, Nov. 29, 1995 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)(not selected for publication in F. Supp.)(“Courts are most likely to rule that complete relief may not be accorded among the parties present in circumstances where the absent party plays a significant role in the provision of some form of injunctive relief.”).

Ms. *4-5.

Related Documents

Share To: