Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Clean Water Act

Joint Tortfeasors Cannot be Joined by Defendants Using
FRCP 19(a) as Necessary and Indispensable Parties

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Coldani v. Hamm, No. 2:07-CV-0660 JAM EFB, 2008 WL 4104292 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the defendant's motion to join the city of Lodi as a necessary party pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background

The plaintiff filed a citizen suit against the defendant alleging that the defendant violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) and created a public nuisance by polluting the groundwater beneath plaintiff's property. Id. at *1. The defendant moved to join the city of Lodi as a necessary and indispensable party pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.

Arguments

The defendant argued that the city should be joined as a necessary and indispensable party because the city was a potentially responsible party for the nitrate contamination alleged by the plaintiff because of possible contamination from the city's sewage treatment facility. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

According to the court's interpretation of Rule 19(a),

a party is necessary . . . if in its absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or the absent party claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and disposing of the action in its absence may: impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; or leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.
Id. at *2.

In the instant case, the defendant tried to join city as a joint tortfeasor under Rule 19(a). Id. However, joint tortfeasors do not necessarily need to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit. Id. The defendant's possible right to seek indemnity or contribution from the city if the defendant was found liable for the groundwater contamination did not make the city a necessary or indispensable party in the instant litigation. Id. Additionally, the court stated that complete relief could be accorded without joinder of the city. Id.

The case was decided on September 3, 2008.