Wach v. Byrne, Goldenberg & Hamilton, Pllc, 910 F. Supp. 2d 162

Plaintiff Thomas Wach, a Swiss citizen, sues the law firm Byrne, Goldenberg & Hamilton, PLLC seeking a share of Schoeps settlement proceeds.
Schoeps involved heirs of Mendelssohn-Bartholdy claiming artworks were transferred due to Nazi duress; a side agreement waived conflicts among heirs.
Defendant previously represented Schoeps plaintiffs and seeks to distribute proceeds; Wach alleges he is an overlooked heir entitled to a portion.
Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join two purportedly conflicting claimants, Redlich and Snaije, as co-defendants.
Redlich asserts a claim to the Wach portion under the German COI; Snaije asserts a claim potentially aligned with Wach depending on interpretation, but Redlich’s claim is undisputed, creating potential diversity issues.
Court preliminarily notes that joinder of an alien party would destroy diversity; the key issue is whether Redlich and Snaije are required parties under Rule 19(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Redlich a required party under Rule 19(a)?	Wach argues Redlich lacks a legally protectable interest and is not required.	Redlich asserts an interest in the Wach funds under the COI and must be joined.	Redlich is a required party under Rule 19(a)(1)(B).
Would joining Redlich destroy diversity jurisdiction?	Joining Redlich would not necessarily destroy diversity because Wach and Redlich could be aligned; however, Wach acknowledges Redlich’s conflicting interest.	Redlich’s inclusion would place aliens on opposing sides, destroying subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.	Joinder of Redlich would destroy diversity; thus feasible joinder is not possible.
Should this action be dismissed for non-joinder under Rule 19(b)?	Alternative forums exist (Germany or DC Superior Court) and dismissal would be inappropriate if relief could be afforded here.	Equity and good conscience require dismissal because Redlich cannot be joined and unjoined adjudication would prejudice Redlich and risk inconsistent obligations.	Dismissal is warranted under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a necessary party.

Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Rule 19(a) two-step joinder analysis)
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation v. United States, 636 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2009) (analysis of joinder and Rule 12(b)(7))
Fortuin v. Mihorat, 683 F. Supp. 1 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (conflicting interests in common fund require joinder)
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma v. Hodel, 788 F.2d 744 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (joint beneficiaries to a fund require joinder)
Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) (prejudice from absent party in Rule 19 context)
Wash. Med. Ctr. v. Holle, 573 A.2d 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (preclusion and privity principles in joinder context)
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (Supreme Court 2008) (extensive Rule 19(a)/(b) guidance; case-specific balancing)
Angst v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co., 77 F.3d 701 (3d Cir. 1996) (nonjoinder and privity considerations)
Davis v. U.S., 192 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 1999) (Rule 19 interests inquiry)