Cluster 396257

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Comm., 2 the Ninth Circuit concluded that the possibility that a third party would subvert an 3 injunction against the defendant did not mean that complete relief could not be 4 accorded among the existing parties. 662 F.2d at 537.

This portion of the rule “is 25 concerned only with relief as between persons already parties, not as between a party and the 26 absent person whose joinder is sought.” Eldredge, 662 F.2d at 537. 27 1 Necessary Parties 2 Tesla and Berkley are the parties to the Removed Action which includes causes of action 3 based on and related to the determination of the obligations and rights of Berkley because of the 4 insurance policies it issued to Tesla and Acme Roofing.

The concern regards “relief as between the persons already parties, 1 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1981) 2 (internal citation and quotations omitted).

“This portion of the rule is concerned only 17 with relief as between the persons already parties, not as between a party and the absent person 18 whose joinder is sought.” Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and 19 Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks, citations omitted). 20 Here, Goose Pond alleges various theories arising from its deal with the Duarte 21 defendants, for breach of its contract with the Duar…

The “complete relief’ factor is “concerned only with ‘relief as between the persons already parties, not as between a party and the absent *604 person whose joinder is sought.’ ” Eldredge v. Carpenters N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm,., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981) (citations omitted); see also Wright v. Incline Vill.

The “complete relief’ factor “is concerned only with relief as between the persons already parties, not as between a party and the absent person whose joinder is sought.” Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982).

Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981).

Though we have twice rejected the JATC’s claim that the real culprits are the employers, Eldredge II, 662 F.2d at 536 (holding that the employers are not necessary parties); Eldredge IV, 833 F.2d at 1337 (holding that the JATC is responsible for decisions it delegates to the employers), the JATC persists in claiming that we cannot render effective relief in the absence of the employers.

Though we have twice rejected the JATC's claim that the real culprits are the employers, Eldredge II, 662 F.2d at 536 (holding that the employers are not necessary parties); Eldredge IV, 833 F.2d at 1337 (holding that the JATC is responsible for decisions it delegates to the employers), the JATC persists in claiming that we cannot render effective relief in the absence of the employers.

Co., 728 F.2d 1006, 1016 (8th Cir. 1984) (holding that interests of Department of Health and Human Services adequately protected by United States Attorney who was representing an insurance company in a defense to a suit by a hospital); Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee, 662 F.2d 534, 538 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982) (holding that employers in Title VII action…

In Wachter v. Dostert, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 303 S.E.2d 731, 734-35 (1983), we quoted the following language from Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee, 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982): "`Rule 19 requires two separate inquiries.

Eldredge, 662 F.2d at 537.

As we previously noted, "[t]he trust fund agreement grants full authority to JATC to structure the apprenticeship program and to select the apprentices." Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 538 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982) (Eldredge II ).

As we previously noted, “[t]he trust fund agreement grants full authority to JATC to structure the apprenticeship program and to select the apprentices.” Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 538 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982) (Eldredge II).

Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981).

Only if the court determines that the action should be dismissed is the absent party labelled "indispensable." 77 Eldredge, 662 F.2d at 537.

Only if the court determines that the action should be dismissed is the absent party labelled “indispensable.” Eldredge, 662 F.2d at 537.

There are however cases where courts have taken the more traditional approach of first determining whether the absent person is a necessary party under Rule 19(a) and then proceeding to determine his indispensability under Rule 19(b), as illustrated by Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship And Training Committee, 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982): “Rule 19 requires two se…

The Court of Appeals reversed. 662 F. 2d, at 537-538.

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and 17 Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[Rule 19(a)(1)(A)] is concerned only with 18 relief as between the persons already parties, not as between a party and the absent person whose 19 joinder is sought.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)). 20 Second, for similar reasons, the Niswongers have not established they are at “risk of 21 incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsisten…

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship & Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534 , 537 (9th Cir.1981).

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981).

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981).

See Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 142 F.Supp.2d. 1187, 1211 (C.D.Cal.2001) (noting that the Rule 19(a)(1)(A) inquiry “is concerned only with relief as between the persons already parties, not as between a party and the absent person whose joinder is sought.” (citing Eldredge v. Carpenters 4.6 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981))).

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee, 662 F.2d 534 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982).

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46, Etc. 662 F.2d 534 , 537 (9th Cir.1981); Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)(1).

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981) (while desirable to join all 4500 employees to eradicate sex discrimination, relief on plaintiff's claims against the defendant can be afforded by an injunction against that party alone), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982).

Rule 19(a)(1) is concerned only with “relief as between the persons already parties, and not as between a party and the absent person whose joinder is sought.” 3A Moore’s Federal Practice 1119.07-1[1] at 19-96 (2d ed. 1985); accord Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982).

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917 , 103 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982).

See Eldridge v. Carpenters # 46, 662 F.2d 534 , 537-38 (9th Cir.1981); Karen v. Nabisco, Inc., 78 F.R.D. at 403.

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee, 440 F.Supp. 506, 517 (N.D.Cal.1977) (explaining that the EEOC’s evaluation of the case as one appropriate for immediate preliminary injunction establishes that *695 there is some substance to the claim), rev’d on other grounds, 662 F.2d 534 (9th Cir.1981).

See Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1981) (look to the practical effects of joinder or non-joinder rather than rigid formula); Gentry v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571, 579-580 (5th Cir.1973) (pragmatic considerations include granting the maximum effective relief with the minimum expenditure of judicial energy).

Amici include two federally recognized tribes—one that is an RHE and one 32 738 F.3d 1111, 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). 33 Id. (“The injury resulted from the [Bureau of Indian Affairs’] Secretary’s actions in ruling the Altos ineligible for tribal membership, not from the [Tribe’s] prior actions with regard to the membership issue); see also Eldredge, 662 F.2d at 537 (The Ninth Circuit concluded “[w]hile it might be desirable to join all 4500 employers in order to eradicate sex dis…

See, e.g., Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship & Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534 , 536 (9th Cir.1981) (discussing how joinder of 4500 employers proved impossible).

See, e.g., Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern Cal. Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 536-37 (9th Cir.1981); Forsberg v. Pacific Northwest Bell Tel.