*1 REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES al. v. PIMENTEL, et
Temporary of ESTATE OF Administrator
PIMENTEL, DECEASED, et al. THE CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT OF FOR APPEALS
THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued No. 06-1204. March 2008 Decided June *3 A. for Charles the cause petitioners. argued Rothfeld Stephen Bomse, E. V. Joshua were him on the briefs With David Geller, Kenneth S. Rosenkranz, Adam J. Gromfin, M. Gossett.
Deputy Kneedler argued Solicitor General cause for curiae urging as amicus reversal. With United States Clement, General were former Solicitor him on the brief Douglas Attorney Acting Bucholtz, General Assistant Raab. Hallward-Driemeier, and Michael S. A.
Robert With for the cause respondents. argued Swift Pimentel were J. him on the brief for Mariano respondent Dyke.* Craig Hillwig, Sherry M. Van Broder, P. and Jon W. Kennedy of the Court. delivered opinion Justice applica- and proper This case turns on interpretation *4 Procedure and Rules of Civil tion 19 of the Federal of Rule in the context of the Rule’s operation us address requires sovereign immunity. foreign to determine commenced action was
This interpleader Ferdinand Marcos stolen by allegedly ownership property Philippine for were filed urging affirmance *Briefs of amici curiae Davis; Professors of Interna- and for Groups by Mark S. Rights Human J. Aceves. tional Law William Phillips, and G. Pietrzak, McLaughlin, Carter Daniel A. A. Robert Pierce, & Smith Fenner Lynch, Merrill Spector R. filed a brief for Daniel as amicus curiae. Inc. Republic Philip-
when he was the of the President of the pines. sovereign Two entities in the suit named invoked im- munity. They Republic Philippines are the of the and the Philippine Presidential Commission on re- Governance, Good Republic They ferred to in turn as the and the Commission. interpleader proceeded were dismissed, but the action objection. Together over their with two who remained the suit, the and the Commission litigation proceed. now insist it was error to allow the they Under contend, Rule the action should have been joined dismissed once it became clear not be could as parties without their consent. Appeals
The United States Court of for the Ninth Circuit, agreeing pro- with the Court, District held the action could parties. ceed Commission without and Among Appeals gave the reasons the Court was that the prevail absent, on entities would their claims. Appeals gave weight We conclude the Court of insufficient foreign sovereign to the status of the Com- reaching mission, the court further erred in discounting the merits of their claims.
I A opinion Appeals When consulted, is quotations reader will find its from Rule do not accord with here; its text as set out for after was in the the case Appeals Court it came the text of the here, and before changed. changes Rules Committee advised stylistic only, Advisory were see Committee’s Notes on 2007 p.C., Amendment to Fed. 28 U. S. Rule Civ. Proc. (2006 I); Supp. agree. the three ed., and we These are rele- stylistic replaced changes. “required” First, vant the word (a). “necessary” subparagraph the 1966 Second, word longer 2007 Rule sets Rule set out factors in clauses and the separate affecting joinder out the lettered head- factors *5 “indispensable,” had ings. which remained the word Third, altogether pre-1966 from is deleted Rule, a remnant the as “indispensable” Though a had current the word text. potential place latent it still had the Rule, lesser mislead. to pre- operation of the Rule both
As substance present, unchanged, re- post-2007 will refer to the we appen- pre-2007 printed in version is vised version. The opinion, The current Rule to this at 873-875. infra, dix part, as follows: states, relevant Required “Rule Joinder Parties 19.
“(a) Required Be if Feasible. to Persons Joined “(1) subject Party. person Required is to serv- A who joinder deprive process ice of will whose jurisdiction joined subject-matter be as court of must party a if:
“(A) person’s cannot accord absence, in that the court complete among existing parties; or relief “(B) relating person the sub- an interest claims disposing ject the action and is so situated person’s may: action in the absence “(i) impair impede person’s practical as a or matter ability protect or interest; “(ii) subject party existing risk to a substantial leave an incurring multiple, inconsistent double, otherwise obligations because of the interest.
“(2) person not been If a has Joinder Court Order. person joined required, that the court must order as join a party. person refuses be A who made proper may plaintiff or, in a either defendant made involuntary plaintiff. case, an “(3) joined party objects to venue and If a Venue. improper, dis- joinder court must make venue would party. miss that
857 “(b) person Is If a When Joinder Not Feasible. required joined joined, who is to if feasible cannot be equity good the court must determine whether, proceed among existing conscience,the action should parties or should be dismissed. factors for the court to consider include:
“(1) judgment per- extent to which a in the rendered might prejudice person son’s absence or the exist- ing parties;
“(2) any prejudice the extent to which could be lessened by: or avoided
“(A) protective provisions judgment; “(B) shaping the relief; or
“(C) other measures; “(3) judgment person’s whether a rendered ab- adequate; sence would be
“(4) plaintiff adequate whether the would have an rem- edy if nonjoinder.” the action were dismissed for Fed. 19(a)-(b), Rules Civ. Proc. 28 U. S. C. 19(c) (imposing pleading requirements); also Rule
19(d) actions). (creating exception for class
B In Republic, 1972, Ferdinand then Marcos, President of the incorporated (Arelma), Arelma, S. A. under Panamanian law. opened brokerage Around same time, Arelma account (Merrill Lynch, with Merrill Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. Lynch) deposited in New York, which million. As $2 year grown approximately 2000, the account had $35 million.
Alleged by during crimes and misfeasance Marcos his presidency subject became the of worldwide attention and protest. A class action and on of some 9,539 behalf his rights against human victims estate, was filed and his Marcos among others. The class action was tried in the United Hawaii and resulted for the District of States District Court nearly judgment v. See Hilao for the class. in a billion $2 1996). (CA9 We refer Marcos, Estate F. 3d litigation mem- case to its class as the Pimentel action, Estate In a related bers as Pimentel class. (the Corporation Roger [sic] Budha Roxas and Golden claimants) against right the assets claim to execute Roxas satisfy against Imelda widow, Marcos’ their own *7 969 Marcos, 91, 113-115, Roxas v. Haw. Marcos. See (1998). 1209, P. 2d 1231-1233 right its class to enforce
The Pimentel
claims
Lynch.
by
by attaching
The
held
the
Merrill
Arelma assets
right
Republic
to the assets
claim a
and the Commission
property
Philippine
providing that
derived
under a
law
Republic
public
the
is forfeited to
from the
of
office
misuse
misappropriation.
An
Declar-
Act
from the moment
Any Property
ing
To
Found
Forfeiture in Favor
the State
Unlawfully
by Any
Acquired
Public
Have Been
Officer
Rep.
Proceedings
Employee
Providing
Therefor,
for the
and
1955).
(June 18,
Act
51:
After Marcos fled in wrongfully any property took. was recover he created to immediately Gov- Almost asked Swiss Commission including recovering ernment for assistance in assets— to Switzerland. shares Arelma—that had moved Marcos compliance certain assets In froze Swiss Government upheld Federal and, the Swiss freeze was Supreme asked the Sandi- In the Commission Court. special jurisdiction ganbayan, Philippine cor- over court any prop- Republic ruption to cases, declare forfeited erty through That of his office. Marcos had obtained misuse litigation Sandiganbayan. pending is still to an escrow account
The assets were transferred Swiss up by Philippine Bank at the National set the Commission (PNB), pending Sandiganbayan’s their decision rightful re- the Commission owner. quested Lynch that Merrill follow the same course trans- fer the Arelma assets to an escrow account at PNB. Merrill Lynch Facing did do so. claims from various Marcos including Lynch creditors, class, Pimentel Merrill instead § interpleader filed an action under 28 U. 1335. The S. C. interpleader among named defendants in were, action others, the Arelma, and the Commission, PNB, and (the here). respondents the Pimentel class The Pimentel case had been tried as a action class before Judge Manuel Real of the United States District Court for sitting by the Central District of California, who was des- ignation in the District of Hawaii after the Panel Judicial Litigation on Multidistrict consolidated the various human rights complaints against Marcos Hilao, court. See supra, Judge Lynch at 771. Real directed Merrill file the interpleader presided action in the he District Hawaii, over the matter. being interpleader
After named as defendants in the ac tion, and the Commission asserted immunity *8 Foreign Sovereign under the Immunities Act of (FSIA), § They pur 28 U. S. C. 1604. moved dismiss to 19(b), premise suant to Rule the based on that the action proceed could not without them. Arelma and also PNB 19(b). pursuant moved to dismiss to Rule Without address ing they immunity, sovereign Judge whether were to entitled initially rejected request by Republic Real the the and the interpleader They ap to Commission dismiss the action. pealed, Appeals the Court of held the reversed. It Re public and the Commission are to immu entitled 19(a) (or nity required and that under Rule “necessary” parties terminology). under the old See In re (CA9 Republic Philippines, the F. 1143, 1149-1152 309 3d 2002). Appeals stay pending The Court of the entered a litigation Sandiganbayan outcome of the the over Mar id., cos assets. at 1152-1153. pending litigation concluding in the Sandi- the
After ganbayan the Arelma to determine entitlement could not stay, Judge the action to the allowed Real vacated assets, A proceed, the class. the assets to Pimentel and awarded Sandiganbayan in the in the case initiated before later, week Republic the Arelma that court declare 1991, the asked ripe arguing was for decision. forfeited, the matter assets yet Sandiganbayan ruled. has Republic, interpleader Commission,Ar- the the In the case judgment in appealed the District Court’s elma, and PNB This time the Court the Pimentel claimants. favor of Lynch, Appeals Pierce, Fenner & affirmed. See Merrill 2006). (CA9 Cory., Dismissal 464 F. ENC 3d Smith v. interpleader it was not warranted under suit, held, of the 19(b) though Republic the the Commission because, 19(a), (“necessary”) parties their required under Rule were on merits that claim little likelihood of success the had so proceed interpleader them. One of action could without any gave action commenced reasons the court was by to recover assets and the Commission 6-year by of limita- York’s statute would be barred New public involving misappropriation of tions claims for (West §213 Supp. property. Law Ann. See N. Y. Civ. Prac. 2008). unnecessary to consider The court thus found any prejudice and the Commission whether judgment might interim de- form of be lessened some interpleader The court also considered cree in the action. Commission obtain the failure of and the Sandiganbayan despite Arelma share — having at held PNB in escrow certificates been located counseling equitable an consideration since 1997-1998—to be interpleader against court further suit. The dismissal *9 interpleader allowing case to found it relevant proceed class, Pimentel serve interests would likely point, forum in other available this has no which, at judgment against property belonging which to enforce its to Marcos. (2007). granted
This Court
certiorari. See
Respondents contend that the and the Commis- proper parties Appeals sion were not in the Court of when allowing reviewed the District Court’s the ac- proceed respondents tion to without them; and, continue, proper parties and the Commission are not proceeding Respondent instant before us. Brief for Pimentel 21. implying respondents saying
Without are correct in appeal and the Commission could neither nor parties become here, we conclude we need not rule on this point. Other us, before Arelma and PNB, also seek Appeals’ affirming review of the decision the Dis They, trict Court. too, moved to dismiss the action under 19(b), appealed from the their motion, denial of and are petitioners general any before this As a matter Court. 19(b). party may move to dismiss an action A under Rule proper jurisdiction may sponte court with also consider sua required person the absence of a and dismiss for failure to join g., See, Co., . e. Minnesota v. Northern Securities (1902); 199, 235 U. S. see also Provident Tradesmens Bank & (1968). Patterson, Trust Co.v. 390 U. S. *10 Respondents argue, have Arelma PNB that and however, question standing the whether this to raise before Court no may proceed the in the of the action absence lost on the merits Arelma and PNB the Commission. interpleaded underlying in both to the assets their claims failing By Appeals. the District Court and the ruling, respondents con- petition for on that merits certiorari any to the entitlement Arelma abandoned tend, and PNB interpleaded lack a concrete stake and therefore assets disagree. proceedings. Dismissal of further We outcome 19(b) Arelma and PNB the action under would benefit Rule interpleaded vacating denying by judgment them the the party A to have a vacated assets. that seeks standing entirety grounds procedural not on does lose its petition simply party on for certiorari because the does not order. the substance of the
Ill interpleader question action the We turn to the whether proceed could in the District Court without parties. the Commission as (a) principles deter- that
Subdivision of Rule states joined persons The in suit. mine when or entities must be person nonjoinder required instructs even of Rule that (a) opens always Subdivision does result dismissal. joinder by noting “if Where that it addresses Feasible.” joinder question the action feasible, is not whether proceed outlined in subdivi- should turns on factors (b) (b). The forth in subdivision sion considerations set introductory clear statement nonexclusive, as made “[t]he Fed. for the court to consider include.” factors 19(b). general “in The direction is whether Proc. Civ. among proceed good equity should conscience, action existing parties Ibid. or should be dismissed.” design determination Rule, then, indicates proceed upon spe- whether to will turn factors that are case equitable cific,which is consistent with a Rule based on con- siderations. This is also consistent with the fact that the may, *11 determination of who must, to a suit has consequences persons for the and entities affected judgment; judicial system for the in the in- and its interest tegrity processes respect of its and the accorded to its de- society prompt crees; and for and concern fair its for the and disputes. g., resolution of See, e. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illi- (1977). nois, 481 U. S. 737-739 these reasons, For joinder complex, issue of can be and determinations are case specific. g., supra, See, Bank, e. Provident at 118-119. “indispensable party”
Under the earlier Rules the term might implied rigidity have a certain that would be ten- case-specific approach. “indispen- sion with this The word unforgiving easily sable” had an connotation that not fit did system permits proceed with a actions to even when persons parties some who otherwise should be to the action joined. cannot be As the Bank, Court noted Provident “indispensable” the use of in Rule 19 created the “verbal anomaly” “indispensable person of an who turns out to be dispensable Though after S., all.” 390 U. at n. 12. changed, design text has the new and, Rule has the same Required persons may to some extent, the same tension. required proceed turn out not to be for the action to after all. multiple In all events it is clear that must bear on factors proceed required person. the decision whether to without a varying This decision “must be based on factors with the being cases, different substantive, some such factors some procedural, compelling by some and some sub- themselves, ject balancing against opposing Id., at 119. interests.”
IV applica- turn The We to Rule 19 as it relates to this case. (a) tion of The subdivision of Rule 19 is not contested. Re- public required entities because Commission interpleader their parties “[w]ithout [them] action, in this protected.” subject In re matter are interests in the Rule Philippines, at see Fed. 3d, 1152; 309 F. 19(a)(l)(B)(i). appear this. to concede All Proc. Civ. application of disagreement centers around The instead may pro (b), action whether the addresses subdivision which given Commission, ceed without parties. requires them to be Rule of review for the standard have not addressed We 19(b) inquiry case-specific fol- that must be decisions. (b), applying set forth subdivision lowed in the standards equity including “in whether the direction to consider implies proceed, good de- some the case should conscience” gree how- case, court. In this to the district deference rulings, implicit and ex- we in the District Court’s ever, find *12 Appeals, plicit opinion errors of law of in the of Court appropriate require standard reversal. Whatever judgment point decide, the could of we need not review, 99-100 States, 81, 518 U. S. not stand. Cf. Koon v. United (1996) (a “by it its when court definition abuses discretion law”). makes an error of necessary giving Appeals erred in not
The Court of sovereign weight immu- entities’ assertion of to the absent nity. the merits of The court effect decided to the Arelma assets. Once and the Commission’sclaims recognized it was frivolous, claims were not was that those Appeals their mer- error for the of to address them on Court sovereign granted required its when the entities had been immunity. was itself The of the merits court’s consideration any immunity; infringement foreign sovereign and, in an on analysis first these errors was flawed. We discuss event, its Appeals’ of in the of how affected context 19(b). analysis ex- then factor of Rule We under the first by plain suggested con- the first factor is that the outcome provisions by analysis of Rule other under the firmed our 19(b). may proceed. The action
865 A 19(b) As to the first Rule factor—the extent to which a judgment person’s might prejudice rendered in the absence person existing parties, or the Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19(b)(1) Appeals of the Court of is incorrect. —the considering
In whether the and the Commission prejudiced proceed would be if the action were to in their Appeals gave weight absence, the Court of insufficient sovereign foreign sovereign their status. The doctrine of immunity recognized early history has been since premised upon “perfect equality our It Nation. is independence sovereigns, th[e] absolute in- common impelling terest them to mutual intercourse.” Schooner (1812). Exchange McFaddon, v. 7 137 The 116, Cranch designed “give Court has observed that the doctrine is foreign protection states and their instrumentalities some from the suit,” Patrickson, inconvenience of Dole Food Co.v. (2003). 538 468, U. S. privilege is codified FSIA, federal statute. §§ provides foreign
U. S. C. 1602-1611, that “a state jurisdiction shall be immune from the of the courts of the except provided United States and of the States in sec- existing agreements tions 1605to 1607,”absent international § contrary. to the 1604; see Verlinden B. v. Bank V. Central (1983) Nigeria, (explaining U. S. 486-489 the his- codification). tory Exceptions gen- of the doctrine’s to the principle foreign immunity eral are contained *13 §§ They inapplicable here, 1605-1607 of the statute. or Immunity at least the invoke in this do not them. Ap- pursuant of case, then, is and to the Court uncontested; peals’ ruling earlier dis- issue, on the the District Court Republic missed the from the action on and Commission ground. this give Appeals failed to
The District Court and the Court of sovereign immunity full effect to when held action proceed Republic could without the and Commission. Giving sovereign immunity promotes comity full effect to development have interests that immunity contributed to the of the g., (“[F]oreign id., See, doctrine. e. at 486 sover eign immunity grace comity”); is a matter of and National City Republic Bank N. Y. China, v. 356, 362, 348 U. S. (1955) (foreign sovereign immunity and n. 7 derives from public morality, dealing, reciprocal “standards of fair self- respect ‘power dignity’ interest, and for the and of the for eign sovereign” (citing supra, Exchange, Schooner at 136- 143-144)). 137,
Comity dignity and interests take form in concrete this Republic case. The claims of the and the Commission arise political significance from events of historical and for the Re- public people. and its and the Commission unique resolving ownership have a interest of or determining claims to the Arelma assets and in if, how, compensate persons the assets should be used to those who grievous injury comity suffered a under Marcos. There is allowing foreign interest in state to use its own courts for dispute right dignity foreign if it has a to do so. The of a state bypass is not if enhanced other nations its courts with- right good out specific Then, too, cause. there is the more affront that could result to the and the Commission property they if foreign claim is seized of a decree court. Cf. Mexico v. 324 U. Hoffman, S. (1945) (pre-FSIA, 35-36 common-law doctrine dictated that immunity courts defer to executive determination of because judicial “[t]he friendly property may seizure” of the of a state regarded dignity may “an affront to its . . . affect it”). our with relations
Though posing this Court has not considered a case precise question presented here, there are some authorities involving joinder governmental the intersection of immunity g., Safety Ap- See, the United e. States. Mine (1945) (dis- pliances v. Forrestal, Co. 326 U. S. 373-375 missing Navy Secretary an action where the Under *14 capacity, in was sued his official because the Government was required entity a joined that could not be when it withheld sued); consent to be Minnesota v. States, United 305 U. S. (1939)(dismissing nonjoinder 382, 386-388 the for action of a required entity where the United States was the owner of question suit). the land but not had consented to analysis joinder of the issue in those cases was somewhat perfunctory, holdings may but the A were clear: case not proceed required-entity sovereign when a is not amenable to These sovereign suit. cases instruct us that where immu- nity sovereign is asserted, and the of claims the are not frivo- lous, dismissal of the action must be ordered where there is potential injury a for sovereign. to the interests of absent the Appeals accordingly
The Court undertaking of erred Republic rule on the merits of the the Commission’s may person claims. There be where eases is not who joined asserts a claim that In is frivolous. instance may leeway 19(a)(1), defining court have both under required parties, 19(b),addressing may and Rule when a suit go disregard forward nonetheless, to the frivolous claim. Here, the claims entities not frivolous; absent Appeals proceeded should not have on the premise against that those claims would determined immunity. entities that asserted Appeals
The Court of determined that the claims Republic and the Commission as to the suc- assets would not ceed because a suit would be time barred New York. necessarily Sandiganbayan This not is If the so. rules owns the or stock assets of Arelma because property Marcos did not own them was forfeited to Philippine misappro- under law, then New York priation might applicable rules not instance, be the law. For standing Commission, and the in for Arelma upon Sandiganbayan’sjudgment, might pursue based misappropriation public property suit, as the Court Appeals They might instead, assumed would. *15 against of Merrill file suit for breach contract alternative, Lynch. They argue limitations would the statute of would Lynch over refused to hand when to run if and Merrill start (West § Supp. Ann. N. Y. Prac. Law the assets. See Civ. 2008); Ely-Cruikshank, Y. Montreal, 81 N. v. Bank Co. of (“In (1993) a York, 985, 986 New 399, 615 N. E. 2d 2d the time of action accrues at of cause of breach breach”). contract bring might and Commission Or enforce the Sandi- federal court to an action either in state or (Third) judgment. For- ganbayan’s 1 Restatement § a eign Comment Law the United States Relations (1986) rendering (jurisdiction foreign court exceptions (providing rel- presumed); d id., Comment is 2467(c) § (providing here); for also C. evant see 28 U. S. foreign judgments cir- in certain enforcement of forfeiture cumstances). why arguments Lynch these makes Merrill Lynch as Brief for Merrill succeed, actions would not see Republic, the 26-27, to which the Commis- Amicus Curiae Reply respond, Peti- Brief for and see sion, the United States 24- for as Amicus Curiae 14-18; tioners Brief United States predict It suffices the outcomes. 28. We need not seek to that the frivolous. claims would not be applied in indicate,
As Rule 19 cannot these comments may require preliminary vacuum, some assessment a example, di- claims. For the Rule merits of certain required determining person, to who is a court, rects complete ab- afforded in their consider whether relief can be 19(a)(1)(A). Likewise, Proc. sence. See Fed. Rule Civ. 19(b) inquiry, extent, examine, must to some the Rule a court likely presented to be asserted the claims the interests persons. by joined and the entities or both absent holding improper to a definitive Here, however, it was issue by regarding an ab- claim made substantive nonfrivolous, entity by required status its sent, that was entitled privilege immunity much is diminished from suit. That important ruling affecting consequential the sover- if an eign’s substantial interest determined, is or at least assumed, sovereign’s a federal court in the absence and over its objection. explained proceed
As above, the decision to in the absence ignored and the Commission the substantial prejudice likely those entities would incur. This most di- 19(b)’s rectly implicates Rule factor, first which directs con- prejudice persons sideration of both absent and those who parties. We have discussed the absent entities. As to existing parties, we do not discount Pimentel class’inter- *16 recovering damages est in pursuant was it awarded to a judgment. combating public corruption Furthermore, is a significant policy. policy international is manifested in providing cooperation treaties for international in recover- ing g., forfeited assets. See, e. United Nations Convention
Against Corruption, 58/4, G. A. V, Res. chs. IV and U. N. (Dec. 2003) pp. Doc. (reprinted A/RES/58/4, 22, 11, 32 in 43 (2004)); Treaty Legal I. L. M. 37 on Mutual Assistance in Treaty Criminal Matters Art. 16, 13, 1994, Nov. S. Doc. (1995). policy support No. 104-18 This does the interest of recovering damages the Pimentel class in awarded to it. But important comity impli- it also underscores the concerns by Republic asserting cated and the Commission in for- eign sovereign immunity. The error is not that District Appeals gave weight Court and the Court of too much to the interest of class, the Pimentel but that accord did proper weight compelling immunity. to the claim of
Based on these considerations we the District conclude Appeals gave weight Court and the Court of insufficient likely prejudice to the and the Commission interpleader proceed should the in their absence.
B 19(b) As to the second Rule factor—the to which extent any prejudice by could be or or meas- lessened avoided relief 19(b)(2)— ures alternative to dismissal, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 870 the action to pro to allow
there is no substantial argument
been
or
of relief have
remedies
forms
ceed. No alternative
7
See C. Wright,
to us or
to be available.
appear
proposed
1608,
§
Procedure
Miller,
Kane,
A.
Federal Practice
& M.
2001)
(3d
alternative
using
cases
(collecting
106-110
ed.
pp.
of money damages
relief,
granting
forms
including
declaratory judg
use of
rather than
performance,
specific
be withheld pending
ment,
payment
and the direction
estate did not
If the Marcos
suits
the absent
against
party).
claim
now,
them
if the
owns
assets,
own
if
events,
there are
and in all
fails;
of the Pimentel class likely
claims,
require
too would
but
competing
valid
equally
Commis
a case where
adjudication
Casualty
v. Co.
Farm Fire &
See State
sion
parties.
Russell v.
Tashire,
(1967);
and n. 16
534,
C 19(b) factor —whether judgment As to Rule the third Fed. be adequate, rendered the absent would without party 19(b)(3) understood Court of Appeals Rule Civ. Proe. —the class’ Pimentel refer to satisfaction “adequacy” in settling to the stake claims. But refers “public adequacy Bank, Provident wholes, whenever possible.” disputes by the efficient admin- This interest S., 390 U. at 111. “social multiple litigation” avoidance of istration the of justice thought support has been “traditionally is an interest adverse claim- and potentially absent compulsory joinder Brick for- Co., S., Going Illinois 431 U. at 737-738. ants.” the Commis- the Republic with the action without ward in settling interest not further the public sion would dispute a whole because Commission judgment not be in an action where would bound parties. were not
D 19(b) plaintiff As to the fourth Rule factor—whether adequate remedy would have an if the action were dismissed 19(b)(4) nonjoinder, for Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. —the Appeals much it victims’ made of what considered tort lack of an alternative forum should this action be dismissed. plaintiff interpleader This seems to assume the in this action Lynch, however, was the Pimentel class. It is Merrill statutory plaintiff has the as the stakeholder in the status interpleader action. interpleader
It true that, action, is an the stakeholder parties press is often neutral as to the while other outcome, plaintiff. claims in the manner insufficient, of a That is though, interpleader to overcome the statement in the stat- plaintiff. ute that the stakeholder is the 28 U. S. C. 1335(a) § (conditioningjurisdiction part upon “the whether plaintiff deposited money property” has such or at issue with “given payable the district court or has bond to the clerk of surety the court in such amount such as the court and with judge may ignore proper”). in con- that, deem We do (and interpleader the Pimentel all claim- text, class indeed ants) plaintiffs comparable are to some to the in non- extent interpleader are not irrelevant to cases. Their interests 19(b) equitable provisions the other balance; but Rule are the relevant ones to consult. point Lynch, that if stakeholder,
Merrill as the makes the benefit of the action is dismissed it loses allowing the mat- be done with it to disburse the assets and urges, an it leaves without action, ter. Dismissal of the adequate remedy, potentially forced ... for it “could *18 juris- in different the various claimants defend lawsuits judgments.” Brief possibly leading to inconsistent dictions, Lynch of A dismissal for as Amicus Curiae 14. Merrill protect nonjoinder, ground however, will action on the disposition Lynch respects. will not in That Merrill some determining Lynch judgment provide with a Merrill likely provide party Mer- but it would assets, entitled to the litiga- against piecemeal Lynch an effective defense rill with conflicting judgments. As matters inconsistent, tion and Lynch against any presently later suit Merrill stand, may join and have and the Commission seek to 19(b) they again as- should the action dismissed under nonjoinder immunity. sovereign to some for Dismissal sert purpose interpleader, is to which extent will serve the par- having pay prevent two or more a stakeholder from to ties for one claim. Lynch regard
Any prejudice is out- to in this Merrill invoking by prejudice weighed sover- to the absent entities 19(b) eign immunity. mean, will under Rule Dismissal plaintiffs a forum will be left without instances, some But that result is of their claims. for definitive resolution sovereign foreign contemplated immu- under the doctrine (“[I]f nity. g., at 497 court de- Verlinden, S., e. 461 U. See, immunity exceptions that none of the to termines raising applies, plaintiff claim in from his will be barred States”). any court in the United
V weight give Appeals’ sufficient failure likely prejudice and the Commission interpleader proceed would, in their absence should the further remand for warrant reversal and course, the usual fur- proceedings. and our that error case, however, In this 19(b) provisions analysis of Rule ther under the additional This the action must be dismissed. lead us to conclude years now to has waited for class, the Pimentel which leaves way wrongs, compensated grievous immediate with no for against it leaves And Marcos. to recover on its judgment. Lynch, stakeholder, without Merrill *19 equities may change The balance of in due course. One change may appears Sandigan- relevant occur if it that the bayan ruling cannot or will not issue its within a reasonable period changes of time. Other could result if when and ruling. Sandiganbayan there ais If the rules that the Re- public right Commission have no to assets, their interpleader claims in some later suit would be less substan- they ruling tial than are now. If the is that the they may and the Commission own the then assets, seek to judgment par- enforce a in our courts; or consent to become interpleader ties an suit, where their claims could be con- juris- sidered; or file in some other forum if can obtain persons. diction over the relevant We do note that if Merrill Lynch, parties, litigation or other elect to commence further light changed necessary circumstances, it would not be to file the new action in the District Court where this action provided jurisdictional requirements arose, venue and present may satisfied elsewhere. The action, however, not proceed.
[*] [*] [*] Appeals The of the Court of for the Ninth Cir- cuit is reversed, and the ease is remanded with instructions interpleader order the District Court to dismiss the action.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX Appeals before the 2007 issued its decision 19(b) amendments to Rule became effective. Merrill Lynch, Corp., Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. ENC 464 F. 3d (CA9 2006). changes The text of the before those adopted were is as follows:
“Rule 19. Joinder for Just of Persons Needed Adjudication “(a) person A if Persons Joined Feasible. subject process joinder
who is to service of and whose jurisdiction sub- over the deprive court of will party joined in the aas ject shall be the action matter of (1) complete relief can- person’s absence action if (2) already parties, among those not be accorded subject relating person interest claims an *20 disposition the action of the that and is so situated action (i)may practical im- matter a person’s as absence in the protect ability inter- person’s that impede pair the or (ii) already parties persons any sub- the leave est or multiple, incurring double, ject risk of a substantial by obligations the reason of inconsistent or otherwise joined, person been so has not If the interest. claimed party. person made a be shall order the court join plaintiff to do but refuses person as a should If the proper in a may defendant, or, person made a be so, party joined ob- involuntary plaintiff. If the case, an party joinder render would jects of that and to venue party improper, shall be of the action the venue from the action. dismissed
“(b) by Join- Whenever Court Determination person in subdi- as described If a der Feasible. (a)(l)-(2) party, the court made a cannot be hereof vision good equity conscience and in whether shall determine among proceed it, before the action should being person thus the absent dismissed, be or should indispensable. consid- regarded factors to be judg- by what extent first, include: the court ered prejudi- might person’s in the absence ment rendered already parties; second, person or those cial to the judg- provisions by protective in which, extent to measures, shaping other relief, or ment, whether avoided; third, prejudice can be lessened ade- person’s will be judgment absence rendered an ade- plaintiff have will quate; fourth, whether nonjoinder. re.medy for quate if the action is dismissed Pleading Nonjoinder. A “(c) Reasons for plead- if names, a claim for relief shall state the ing asserting known to the as described pleader, any persons (a)(l)-(2) subdivision hereof who are not and joined, reasons are not why they joined.
“(d) Exception This rule is of Class Actions. subject provisions to the of Rule 23.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc., 28 U. S. C.
Justice Stevens, concurring dissenting part part. join opinion holding
While I II Part of the Court’s that we jurisdiction Appeals’ have to review the decision agree Appeals’ that we should not affirm the Court of analysis on the merits of its under 19 of the appropriate Federal Procedure, Rules of Civil I believe the disposition of this case is to reverse remand for further *21 proceedings. The District Court and the Ninth Circuit by concluding erred that the York of limitations New statute provides virtually insuperable petitioners’ a re- obstacle to covery agree Arelma, of the I therefore A., assets, S. give that this I not, however, Court should reverse. would (Re- near-dispositive Philippines effect to the public) Philippine and the Presidential on Good Commission (Commission) sovereign entities, Governance’s status as ordering outright the in Court does dismissal of the case. my judgment, Appeals In should either order Judge stay proceedings pending a rea- District to further sonably prompt Sandiganbayan or order decision of Judge reassigned conduct fur- case to a different District proceedings. a of unfairness is, course, ther There risk participation conducting proceedings such without the waiving petitioners. they But it can avoid is risk sovereign immunity, provides a basis for their and the record proceeded believing they before would do so if the case judge. a different immunity did not invoke its until seeking
after the District Court denied its motion dismissal improper venue, transfer for dismissal on act of state grounds, Judge. App. id., or recusal 2-3 9; of District at (docket entries). support In of that motion advanced a suspecting Judge’s impar- factual basis for that the District tiality questioned. Sup- could be of Law in Memorandum port Stay, Dismiss, of the Motions To Transfer or and for (D. Haw.), pp. Recusal in Civ. No. CV00-595MLR 23-28. Judge likely These facts that the would demonstrate District difficulty putting “have substantial his or her mind out of previously-expressed views.” v. Montrose California (CA9 Corp. Chemical F. 3d California, 1997)(providing the for when the will standard Ninth Circuit (internal omitted)). reassign quotation a case marks appears, Judge example, It for that the summoned District attorney representing Lynch meeting an Merrill Angeles September chambers in Los on after learn- 11,2000, ing sought that the to obtain Commission Lynch. During pro- the Arelma funds from these Merrill ceedings, Judge Lynch the District to file an directed Merrill interpleader action before him in the of Hawaii and District deposit despite court, the Arelma with the the attor- funds ney’s argument likely ap- the more that New York would 2000). propriate (Sept. ante, 859; forum. at Tr. 6 Lynch interpleader September 14, 2000, Merrill on filed making Judge for file, District sealed the difficult proceedings. other to determine the status of *22 Support See Affidavit of in of the Motions Richard A. Martin Stay by Republic To the Dismiss, Transfer or Submitted Philippines the the on Good and Presidential Commission (D. Haw.),¶¶6-7,11. Government Civ. No. CV00-595MLR bespeak personal and These actions a level of involvement proceedings at least desire to control the Marcos that create Republic con- a colorable basis for the and the Commission’s Judge’s impartiality. cern about the District
877 following Republic the the and Commis- Furthermore, immunity- sovereign the action on sion’s motion to dismiss they Judge grounds, not “real decided that were the District Philippines, Republic in interest.” In re 2002). (CA9 reversed The Ninth Circuit 1143, F. 3d stay, Judge id., 1153; to enter a at directed the District stay within vacated the so, the District Court did but to do so was the Court’s decision months. While District presumably concern increased some basis, not without fairly Judge possibility would not that the District about the Republic’s position on the merits. consider the question Upon reassignment, the to dismiss the whether require Republic stay proceedings, or to case, immunity asserting sovereign and de- choose between its Judge open. fending The District on the merits would be might hearing the Re- to determine whether wish to hold argument public have a substantial Commission disputed con- assets when were owned the veyed that the assumes to Arelma in 1972. While Court Republic’s frivolous,” is “not in the Arelma assets interest Repub- it not clear whether ante, record, at on this is preclude sufficient their those assets to lic has a claim to Republic’s recovery by judgment of Marcos. creditors may disputed unre- reasons be meritless for claim to assets potential of limitations. lated to the statute balancing inquiry conducting mandated Further, opinion interpreted by for the Harlan’s Justice Patter- Trust v. Bank & Co. in Provident Tradesmens (1968), facts several conclude that I would son, 390 U. S. suggest specific Com- that the to this case weight given less should be mission’s interests ordinary events, First, in all than in the case. steps in United affirmative must take and the Commission (or the Attor- possibly the assistance courts invoke States as Amicus ney Brief for United States so, to do see General 27) held point the assets to recover at some order Curiae *23 878 impli- sovereign interest Thus, the States. the United magnitude as when not of the same
cated here is choosing Republic’s the most liability; is in interest faces proceed. time for the suit venue and convenient partici- Republic past has decades, the in the two Second, involving in our proceedings assets pated Marcos’ in other any objection. interposing in 1987 Indeed, without courts underly- Circuit brief with the Ninth filed an amicus respond- entry of ing to the action that led consolidated class Republic against judgment that brief Marcos; in ents’ Judge’s dis- urged the District to reverse the Ninth Circuit consolidated) (later the act under of two of the cases missal two Plaintiffs in those and “to allow of state doctrine rights gross viola- present human their evidence of cases justice pursue in U. S. against Marcos and Ferdinand tions Respondent Pimentel App. Brief for A to District Court.” RA-1. notwithstanding position the fact Republic’s
This was against recovery any Mar- come from a would Republic and the Commission that the cos’ assets —assets Marcos from the moment have owned in full now claim to g., 04- acquired Nos. e. Brief for See, them. (“Under resulting (CA9), Philippine p. law, assets 16401etc. corruption, bribery, public office, from the misuse of Repub- by public to the are forfeit officials other such crimes generated”); Pet. for lic from the moment such assets (filed 1991) (seeking (Sandiganbayan) Republic No. assets). if large Even number of Marcos forfeiture of a personal might some have believed that Marcos theory Republic’s gotten, ill under assets that were not judg- approached possibly have that amount could en- was respondents Either ment received. Repub- litigation, symbolic couraging purely or the futile and at least access to have creditors would lic believed other portion vast assets. of Marcos’ *24 persuaded judgment today In I am sum, the Court’s represents approach” a more “inflexible than the Rule con- templates. Provident, at All S., 390 U. 107. have prompt disposition an in interest resolution of the of the judge Arelma assets. A remand would allow a new to han- expeditious requir- in dle the matter an fashion rather than ing proceeding. suggests a brand new The Court that Mer- Lynch may presumably rill file in another District in Court— litigation. New York—if it seeks to commence further put ante, at 873. While this solution would the matter ber- Judge, requires fore another District the initiation of a new proceeding may unnecessarily delay the final resolution.
Accordingly, respectfully I dissent. concurring part dissenting . Justice Souter, part. join opinion. I all but Parts IV-B V Court’s pend- I differ as to relief because a conclusion of the matter ing Sandiganbayan may simplify before the the issues raised disposition in this case and render one or another more clearly I correct. would therefore vacate the stay proceedings
remand for a for a reasonable time to Philippine appear await a decree of the If it court. should expected, Ap- later that no such decree can be Court of peals step light could on decide the next of the Court’s opinion. given by For reasons I would Stevens, Justice any proceedings order that further in the District judge held before a fresh to the case.