United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
January 9, 2003
NIKKI BRAND, PLAINTIFF
ROHR-VILLE MOTORS, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles P. Kocoras, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the court on Defendant Rohr-Ville Motors, Inc.'s ("Rohr-Ville") motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to join a third party. Plaintiff Nikki Brand failed to answer the motion. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the motion to join the third party and deny the motion to dismiss.
Brand purchased a Kia automobile on credit from Rohr-Ville. Shortly thereafter, Rohr-Ville allegedly revoked its extension of credit to her and repossessed the vehicle in violation of the Illinois Commercial Code. Rohr-Ville allegedly never informed her why her application for financing was denied in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691. It is also alleged that Rohr-Ville, when rejecting Brand's credit application and repossessing the vehicle, never provided the disclosure required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681.
Rohr-Ville alleges (and provides supporting documentation) that Michael Standifer co-purchased the Kia vehicle with Brand. Accordingly, Rohr-Ville seeks to dismiss the case or to have Standifer joined. Rule 12(b)(7) provides for dismissal of an action when there is a "failure to join a party under Rule 19." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7). Rule 19(b) provides for dismissal only when a Rule 19(a) party "cannot be made a party". Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b). Assuming for the moment that Standifer qualifies as a Rule 19(a) party, we note that the record is entirely devoid of any indication that he could not be made a party. Thus, the motion to dismiss is denied.
Rule 19(a), on the other hand, does grant some relief at this juncture. Under Rule 19(a) we will order a person to be joined if his absence would prevent complete relief from being conferred among those already parties or would leave any of them subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent liability. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a). Brand alleges that Rohr-Ville illegally seized the vehicle that she and Standifer purchased together. Brand does not dispute this and offers no reason for not joining Standifer in this action.
The motion to dismiss is denied. The motion to have Standifer joined is granted. Brand is ordered to join Standifer within a reasonable period of time.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.