114 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1997), 96-15117, Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop By and Through Peters
|Citation:||114 F.3d 1194|
|Party Name:||KONA ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Bernice Pauahi BISHOP, By and Through its trustees, Henry H. PETERS, Myron B. Thompson, Oswald K. Stender, Richard S.H. Wong, and Lokelani Lindsey; Masuo Takabuki, individually; William S. Richardson, individually; Myron B. Thompson, individually; Henry H. Peters, Jr., individually; Hanford'|
|Case Date:||May 29, 1997|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted May 6, 1997.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i, No. CV-94-00858-DAE; David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: NORRIS, HALL, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Kona Enterprises, Inc. ("Kona") appeals the dismissal of its action for lack of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to dismiss due to the presence of plaintiffs Balanced Value Fund ("Balanced Value") and Tach One and defendant Montrose Nationwide Limited Partnership ("Montrose Nationwide"). As the court found, complete diversity was lacking because Montrose Nationwide, a limited partnership, is deemed to be the citizen of each state in which limited partners Balanced Value and Tach One reside. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990).
However, the district court did not undertake a complete analysis of whether the non-diverse parties were necessary and indispensable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 21. It also determined that plaintiffs ought not to be granted leave to amend under Rule 15, which is not a relevant consideration. Accordingly, we reverse and remand in order to give the district court a second opportunity to apply Rules 19 and 21.
Under Rule 21, 1 the district court has the discretion to retain its diversity jurisdiction by dropping the non-diverse parties, provided they are not indispensable to the suit under Rule 19. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP