 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grove v. Pfister4/20/2005
sustain the district court's ruling that Broberg was a necessary and indispensable party to Grove's suit.
[ ] In a final effort, Pfister urges us to affirm the district court's order under W.R.C.P. 20. That Rule is concerned with permissive joinder and "joinder in situations falling within the rule's standard is not required unless it is within the scope of compulsory joinder prescribed by Rule 19." 7 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure ยง 1652, at 395-96 (2001). We need not consider Pfister's argument any further.
CONCLUSION
[ ] Grove and Broberg possessed separate and independent causes of action. The district court erred when it found Broberg to be a necessary and indispensable party and required joinder. We reverse and remand to the district court so that Grove may proceed with her claim.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|