Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1991

Temple v. Synthes Corp.

498 U.S. 5 | 111 S. Ct. 315 | 112 L. Ed. 2d 263 | 1990 U.S. LEXIS 5672

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case confirms that a plaintiff ordinarily may sue one alleged joint tortfeasor without joining all others; concerns about efficiency or competing blame do not make those other tortfeasors indispensable under Rule 19.

Background

Temple, a Mississippi resident, underwent spinal surgery in New Orleans in October 1986. Dr. S. Henry LaRocca implanted a plate-and-screw device manufactured by Synthes Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation. After the surgery, the device’s screws broke inside Temple’s back.

Temple sued Synthes in federal district court in Louisiana under diversity jurisdiction, alleging that the device was defectively designed and manufactured. Separately, he pursued malpractice and negligence claims against Dr. LaRocca and the hospital through Louisiana’s administrative process and then in Louisiana state court.

Synthes did not file a third-party complaint against the doctor or hospital under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a). Instead, it moved to dismiss Temple’s federal action under Rule 19, arguing that the doctor and hospital had to be joined. The District Court ordered Temple to add them as defendants, chiefly in the interest of judicial economy, and dismissed his suit with prejudice when he did not do so. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that separate litigation could prejudice the defendants because each might blame the others for Temple’s injury.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a plaintiff suing one alleged joint tortfeasor must join other potential joint tortfeasors as required parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a).

Holding

No. Potential joint tortfeasors subject to ordinary joint-and-several liability are permissive parties, not parties who must be joined under Rule 19(a).

Reasoning

The Court began with the established rule that a plaintiff need not sue all joint tortfeasors in one action. A claimant may proceed against one alleged wrongdoer without naming every other person who may share responsibility for the same injury.

The 1966 revision of Rule 19 did not alter that traditional rule. The Rule 19(a) Advisory Committee Notes expressly state that a tortfeasor with usual joint-and-several liability is merely a permissive party in an action against another tortfeasor with like liability.

Synthes, the surgeon, and the hospital were potential joint tortfeasors. Louisiana law did not supply a contrary rule requiring Temple to sue them together. Thus, the surgeon and hospital did not meet Rule 19(a)'s threshold for required joinder.

Issue #2

Whether judicial economy and the risk of inconsistent blame allocation justified ordering joinder and dismissing Temple’s action under Rule 19(b).

Holding

No. Because Rule 19(a)'s threshold requirements were not met, the courts had no occasion to conduct a Rule 19(b) indispensability analysis or to dismiss the action for nonjoinder.

Reasoning

The lower courts emphasized the desirability of resolving the overlapping product-liability and medical-negligence claims in one proceeding. But efficiency alone does not convert permissive joint tortfeasors into required parties under Rule 19(a).

Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson did not support the dismissal. In that case, the Court assumed that the absent party should be joined if feasible under Rule 19(a), then considered under Rule 19(b) whether the case could proceed because joinder would destroy diversity. Here, by contrast, the absent doctor and hospital were not required parties in the first place.

Since no Rule 19(a) requirement existed, the District Court abused its discretion by ordering Temple to join the doctor and hospital and by dismissing his federal suit with prejudice when he declined.