Zack Ward v. Apple, Inc. (2015)

Co. v. Rite Aid of S.C., Inc., 210 F.3d 246, 251 (4th Cir. 2000) (indicating that the court’s decision would “necessarily require it to interpret the notice provisions of the policy and other agreements” between the plaintiff and the absent party). “[E]ven if [an absent party] is alleged to have played a central role” in the action at issue, “and even if resolution of the action will require the court to evaluate the absent party’s conduct,” that party “in many cases . . . w…

Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1049 (9th Cir. 2015); Bituminous Ins.

See Ward v. Ap- ple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that [the absent party’s] reputational interests in this ac- tion are not legally protected under Rule 19.”), abrogated in part on other grounds by Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23 (2017); Challenge Homes, Inc. v. Greater Na- ples Care Ctr., Inc., 669 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding absent party to be not necessary despite his inter- est in avoiding a finding that he breached fiduciary d…

See Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We have repeatedly recognized that voluntary dismissals with prejudice that produce an adverse final judgment may be appealed.”).

See, e.g., Concha, 62 F.3d at 1507 (holding that a plaintiff may appeal a voluntary dismissal “when it is with prejudice to his right to commence another action for the same cause or otherwise subjects him to prejudicial terms or conditions”); Ward v. Apple, Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015).

Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir. 2015).

The Fourth Circuit has also noted that where absent parties are ““‘alleged to have played a central role’ in the action at issue, . . . [those parties] ‘in many cases will not have interests that warrant protection under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i).’” McKiver v. Murphy -Brown, LLC, 980 F.3d 937, 952 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015), abrogated on other grounds by Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23 (2017))).

Cachil , 547 F.3d at 970 ; see also Ward v. Apple Inc. , 791 F.3d 1041 , 1051 (9th Cir. 2015) ("We have offered little guidance regarding which interests warrant legal protection under Rule 19.").

To evaluate a Rule 12(b)(7) motion, a court conducts a three-step inquiry.28 First, the court determines “whether the absent party is ‘required’ under Rule 19(a).”29 In determining whether a person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action, “only ‘legally protected’ interests warrant protection under Rule 19.”30 “This interest must be more than a financial stake, and more than speculation about a future event.”31 Next, if the absent party is required, the cour…

This could have particularly negative consequences for Hospiten and its associated medical professionals, who are currently unknown but will likely be identified as part of the public record as discovery continues in this matter.”). 48 Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015). 49 We need not address whether joinder is feasible or dismissal is warranted because the Resort Owners did not meet their burden of showing the existence of required nonparties.

Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861 , 881 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We have not, however, held that an absent party is always required when the relief sought in an action merely implicates an absent party’s contract rights.”).

To find that a party is necessary, the party must have an “interest [that is] ‘more than a financial stake, and more than speculation about a future event.” McKiver, 980 F.3d at 952 (quoting Ward v. Apple, Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015)).

Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Ward v. Apple, 791 F.3d 1041, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Our cases also establish that an absent party may be required in an action seeking equitable relief that would prevent a defendant from fulfilling ‘substantial’ contractual obligations to the absent party.”), abrogated on other grounds by Sperring v. LLR, Inc., 995 F.3d 680, 682 (9th Cir. 2021).

P. 19; Ward v. Apple, 791 F.3d 1041, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) ( “[I]t is well-established that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action to set aside the contract.”). of the litigation for the Court to resolve the ultimate issue of whether ILWU engaged in unfair labor practices,138 it appears Matson is necessary for the equitable relief Samson seeks.139 C.

Cf. Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1051 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting Bowen’s 13 requirement that an absent party claim a legally protected interest in the action and holding 14 “[e]ven if we assume that ATTM’s [the absent third party’s] attorney … was authorized to assert 15 [its] interests in this litigation, [Defendant] has not shown that the interests ATTM has purportedly 16 claimed are legally protected under Rule 19”). “‘[I]t is inappropriate for one defendant to attempt…

See, e.g., Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1049 (9th Cir. 2015) (“If the Plaintiffs prevail, they will be able to recover all of their damages from Apple alone, without naming ATTM as a party.

See Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 2015) (“‘It has long been the rule 6 that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.’”) 7 (quoting Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7 (1990)).

As the Ninth Circuit explained in Ward v. Apple Inc., “voluntary 12 dismissals with prejudice that produce an adverse final judgment may be appealed,” and a 13 voluntary dismissal with prejudice is adverse because it bars the plaintiff’s claim “forever.”29 14 Reading Ward along with the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Semtek Int’l Inc. v. 15 Lockheed Martin Corp., which provides that a dismissal with prejudice functions as an 16 adjudication on the merits, I conclud…

Compare Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 , 1706–07 (2017) (concluding that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of a class action lawsuit did not give rise to an appealable judgment), with Ward 14 v. Apple, Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We have repeatedly recognized that voluntary dismissals with prejudice that produce an adverse final judgment may be appealed.”).

In some cases, however, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice that produce an adverse final judgment may be appealed, Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2015), although recent case law suggests that such a dismissal may not be appealable where the appellant engaged in some form of sham tactics or opportunism to manufacture appellate jurisdiction.

Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 2015).

Ward v. Apple, Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 2016).

See Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041 , 1045–46 (9th Cir. 2015); Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2010) (so holding in compelled arbitration context).

See Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015); Montes, 37 F.3d at 1350 .

See Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 2015) (“According to Rule 19’s text, two conditions must be satisfied for a party to qualify as a ‘required party’ under Rule 19(a)(1)(B).

See Ward, 13 791 F.3d at 1051 . 14 Turning to the substance of Rule 19, the Court must first determine if the CNMI is a 15 16 necessary party to this action, and it concludes the CNMI is not under both Rule 19(a)(1)(A) and 17 (B).

See Ward v. Apple, Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1052 (9th Cir. 2015).

See also Ward v. Apple, Inc. , 791 F.3d 1041 , 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding reversible error where the court failed to identify the interests of the absent party or address how those interests might be impaired if the action were resolved in its absence).

See generally Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 2015) (Antitrust conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators.); Paper Sys.