MEMORANDUM OPINION
ORDERING JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS ON THE PLEADINGS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
HAUK, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Fletcher Aircraft Company brings the above entitled action for an injunction and declaratory judgment against the defendant employees of the Federal Aviation Administration, who move for judgment on the pleadings.
Fletcher Aircraft Company is the assignee of Sargent-Fletcher Company of an F.A.A. Aircraft Type Certificate (hereafter referred to as “TC”) authorizing the manufacture or importation of aircraft into the United States, under and by virtue of an assignment dated December 6, 1976. A TC is issued to an applicant by the F.A.A. and only one certificate is issued to a manufacturer for any particular design or type of aircraft. 14 C.F.R. Subpart B, Sections 21.-11 ff.1
[51]*51A TC may be wholly transferred or made available to third persons by licensing agreements. The TC, on its reverse side, contains a space for a transfer endorsement, to be signed by the holder and surrendered to the F.A.A. which then issues a new certificate to the transferee.
The central issue in this case, as raised by the complaint and motion for judgment on the pleadings, is who is the rightful holder of “TC 4A12.” Plaintiff claims that the defendants wrongfully transferred “TC 4A12” from plaintiffs’ assignor, Sargent-Fletcher, to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., a New Zealand Corporation.
On November 13, 1953, Fletcher Aviation Corporation (not plaintiff, Fletcher Aircraft Company) applied for a TC on the aircraft known as the Fletcher Model FU-24. On July 22, 1955, the F.A.A. issued “TC 4A12” to Fletcher Aviation Corporation. On February 28, 1961, the F.A.A. amended “TC 4A12” to include an additional Fletcher Aircraft, Model FU-24A.
On February 19, 1964, Fletcher Aviation Corporation in a corporate acquisition and name change transferred “TC 4A12” to the Sargent-Fletcher Co., and the F.A.A. re-issued “TC 4A12” to Sargent-Fletcher on that date.
On October 12, 1972, Sargent-Fletcher Company transferred “TC 4A12” to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd. Mr. Clayton Blum, treasurer of Sargent-Fletcher Company, executed the transfer endorsement for Sargent-Fletcher Company. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Blum was not authorized by Sargent-Fletcher to execute the transfer and that the F.A.A. knew or should have known that Mr. Blum was not authorized to endorse any transfer documents. On November 7, 1972, the F.A.A. re-issued “TC 4A12” to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., the present holder of the TC.
' Plaintiff, Fletcher Aircraft Company, the assignee of “TC 4A12” from Sargent-Fletcher Company on December 6, 1976, seeks to have the Court declare that the defendant F.A.A. employees, by transferring “TC 4A12” to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., on the allegedly unauthorized endorsement of Clayton Blum, exceeded their lawful authority. Plaintiff also seeks an order directing the F.A.A. to cancel “TC 4A12” as issued to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., and to issue to plaintiff a new and properly designated TC whether referred to as “TC 4A12” or not, for the Fletcher FU-24 and FU-24A aircraft.
Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party within the meaning of F.R.Civ.P. Rule 19(b).
The question is whether Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., is an indispensable party to this action for an injunction and declaratory [52]*52judgment. This Court concludes that Air Parts is such an indispensable party and that the action must be dismissed, but without prejudice to refiling when and if Air Parts is joined as a party defendant.
It is a firmly established procedural maxim that a judgment which substantially affects the rights of a party who is not joined violates due process. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 254-5, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). The Supreme Court first enunciated this principle of indispensable parties in Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 129,15 L.Ed. 158 (1854). Persons are indispensable parties who not only have an interest in the controversy, but such an interest that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.
This principle is now embodied in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Rule 19.
JOINDER OF PERSONS NEEDED FOR JUST ADJUDICATION
(a) Persons to be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party. If he should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant, or in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. If the joined party objects to venue and his joinder would render the venue of the action improper, he shall be dismissed from the action.
(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder not Feasible. If a person as described. in subdivision (a)(l)-(2) hereof cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.
(c) Pleading Reasons for Nonjoinder. A pleading asserting a claim for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons as described in subdivision (a)(l)-(2) hereof who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
It is thus clear that, following Rule 19(a) the Court must first determine whether Air Parts is an indispensable party. Here, where the plaintiff seeks to divest Air Parts’ right to hold “TC 4A12,” Air Parts is an indispensable party and clearly should be joined if at all possible, because in its absence complete relief cannot be accorded those already parties, and its claimed interest which, in the absence of Air Parts as a party, cannot adequately be protected.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ORDERING JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS ON THE PLEADINGS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
HAUK, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Fletcher Aircraft Company brings the above entitled action for an injunction and declaratory judgment against the defendant employees of the Federal Aviation Administration, who move for judgment on the pleadings.
Fletcher Aircraft Company is the assignee of Sargent-Fletcher Company of an F.A.A. Aircraft Type Certificate (hereafter referred to as “TC”) authorizing the manufacture or importation of aircraft into the United States, under and by virtue of an assignment dated December 6, 1976. A TC is issued to an applicant by the F.A.A. and only one certificate is issued to a manufacturer for any particular design or type of aircraft. 14 C.F.R. Subpart B, Sections 21.-11 ff.1
[51]*51A TC may be wholly transferred or made available to third persons by licensing agreements. The TC, on its reverse side, contains a space for a transfer endorsement, to be signed by the holder and surrendered to the F.A.A. which then issues a new certificate to the transferee.
The central issue in this case, as raised by the complaint and motion for judgment on the pleadings, is who is the rightful holder of “TC 4A12.” Plaintiff claims that the defendants wrongfully transferred “TC 4A12” from plaintiffs’ assignor, Sargent-Fletcher, to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., a New Zealand Corporation.
On November 13, 1953, Fletcher Aviation Corporation (not plaintiff, Fletcher Aircraft Company) applied for a TC on the aircraft known as the Fletcher Model FU-24. On July 22, 1955, the F.A.A. issued “TC 4A12” to Fletcher Aviation Corporation. On February 28, 1961, the F.A.A. amended “TC 4A12” to include an additional Fletcher Aircraft, Model FU-24A.
On February 19, 1964, Fletcher Aviation Corporation in a corporate acquisition and name change transferred “TC 4A12” to the Sargent-Fletcher Co., and the F.A.A. re-issued “TC 4A12” to Sargent-Fletcher on that date.
On October 12, 1972, Sargent-Fletcher Company transferred “TC 4A12” to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd. Mr. Clayton Blum, treasurer of Sargent-Fletcher Company, executed the transfer endorsement for Sargent-Fletcher Company. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Blum was not authorized by Sargent-Fletcher to execute the transfer and that the F.A.A. knew or should have known that Mr. Blum was not authorized to endorse any transfer documents. On November 7, 1972, the F.A.A. re-issued “TC 4A12” to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., the present holder of the TC.
' Plaintiff, Fletcher Aircraft Company, the assignee of “TC 4A12” from Sargent-Fletcher Company on December 6, 1976, seeks to have the Court declare that the defendant F.A.A. employees, by transferring “TC 4A12” to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., on the allegedly unauthorized endorsement of Clayton Blum, exceeded their lawful authority. Plaintiff also seeks an order directing the F.A.A. to cancel “TC 4A12” as issued to Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., and to issue to plaintiff a new and properly designated TC whether referred to as “TC 4A12” or not, for the Fletcher FU-24 and FU-24A aircraft.
Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party within the meaning of F.R.Civ.P. Rule 19(b).
The question is whether Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., is an indispensable party to this action for an injunction and declaratory [52]*52judgment. This Court concludes that Air Parts is such an indispensable party and that the action must be dismissed, but without prejudice to refiling when and if Air Parts is joined as a party defendant.
It is a firmly established procedural maxim that a judgment which substantially affects the rights of a party who is not joined violates due process. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 254-5, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). The Supreme Court first enunciated this principle of indispensable parties in Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 129,15 L.Ed. 158 (1854). Persons are indispensable parties who not only have an interest in the controversy, but such an interest that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.
This principle is now embodied in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Rule 19.
JOINDER OF PERSONS NEEDED FOR JUST ADJUDICATION
(a) Persons to be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party. If he should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant, or in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. If the joined party objects to venue and his joinder would render the venue of the action improper, he shall be dismissed from the action.
(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder not Feasible. If a person as described. in subdivision (a)(l)-(2) hereof cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.
(c) Pleading Reasons for Nonjoinder. A pleading asserting a claim for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons as described in subdivision (a)(l)-(2) hereof who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
It is thus clear that, following Rule 19(a) the Court must first determine whether Air Parts is an indispensable party. Here, where the plaintiff seeks to divest Air Parts’ right to hold “TC 4A12,” Air Parts is an indispensable party and clearly should be joined if at all possible, because in its absence complete relief cannot be accorded those already parties, and its claimed interest which, in the absence of Air Parts as a party, cannot adequately be protected. Putting it in the language of Rule 19(a), the absence of Air Parts as a party will impair and impede its ability to protect that interest.
Having determined that Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., should be joined, the Court must then decide whether, under the standards out[53]*53lined in Rule 19(a), it is feasible for the Court to join Air Parts. Examining the pleadings, it is apparent that since the Court does not have in personam jurisdiction over Air Parts, and since the complaint does not give any reasons why Air Parts is not joined as required by Rule 19(c), we now turn to Rule 19(b).
Under this Rule, it is our duty to determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed with the parties before it or be dismissed because the absent party is indispensable. Rule 19(b) enumerates four factors to be considered by the Court in determining whether the Court can, in equity and good conscience, proceed without the absent party. The list is by no means exhaustive, nor does the rule state how much weight is to be given to each of the factors. 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1607, p. 63 (1972). Thus Rule 19(b) vests considerable discretion with the trial Court. Id.
The four factors listed are: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in a person’s absence might be prejudicial to him, or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; and fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.
Examination of the four factors outlined by Rule 19(b) compels this Court to determine that the litigation cannot proceed without Air Parts.
With regard to the first factor, a judgment rendered in the absence of Air Parts (N.Z.) Ltd., would surely prejudice its interest. A cancellation of its status as putative holder of “TC 4A12” would mean that it would no longer be authorized by the F.A.A. to manufacture the designated aircraft in New Zealand for export therefrom and for import into the United States.
Taking up the second factor, whether the Court can shape its decree such that the prejudice will be avoided or lessened, the Court cannot find, nor does counsel suggest, any way that the Court can grant the relief requested by the plaintiff without prejudicing the absent Air Parts. Should the Court grant plaintiff’s prayer for relief, Air Parts would lose its status as holder of a valid TC, to wit, “TC 4A12.” The conclusion is inescapable that if plaintiff were to be granted its requested relief, the absent party, (Air Parts) would suffer prejudice, no matter how the Court shapes its decree.
The third factor to be considered, whether a judgment entered in the absence of Air Parts would be adequate, again points to the conclusion that Air Parts is indispensable. A judgment not affecting Air Parts could not give plaintiffs the requested relief. A judgment granting plaintiff’s requested relief would be prejudicial to the absent party. Any judgment on the merits entered without Air Parts being represented would be inadequate.
Turning to the fourth factor, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder, the Court notes that this last factor also indicates dismissal for nonjoinder. The plaintiff, being the claimed rightful assignee of “TC 4A12,” may bring an action against the assignor Sargent-Fletcher Company for breach of contract or for rescission. Also there are no reasons alleged why plaintiff would be unable to join and effect service on Air Parts. See Rule 19(c).
Having determined that Air Parts is an indispensable party without whom this Court cannot proceed, and that the Court can dismiss plaintiff’s action, does not end the matter. The standards set out in Rule 19 should be applied in a way that will effectuate the policy of avoiding circuity of lawsuits. 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1604, p. 43. Thus the plaintiff will be given an opportunity to join Air Parts if at all possible. Judgment for defendants is, therefore, granted without prejudice to the plaintiff’s refiling of the action, provided that Air Parts is served and joined as a party, all within 45 days.
Let Judgment be entered accordingly.