Temple v. Synthes Corporation, Ltd

Citation498 U.S. 5,111 S.Ct. 315,112 L.Ed.2d 263
Decision Date05 November 1990
Docket NumberNo. 90-295,90-295
PartiesBilly J. TEMPLE v. SYNTHES CORPORATION, LTD
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

See 498 U.S. 1042, 111 S.Ct. 715.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Temple, a Mississippi resident, underwent surgery in October 1986 in which a "plate and screw device" was implanted in his lower spine. The device was manufactured by respondent Synthes, Ltd. (U.S.A.) (Synthes), a Pennsylvania corporation. Dr. S. Henry LaRocca performed the surgery at St. Charles General Hospital in New Orleans Louisiana. Following surgery, the device's screws broke off inside Temple's back.

Temple filed suit against Synthes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The suit, which rested on diversity jurisdiction, alleged defective design and manufacture of the device. At the same time, Temple filed a state administrative proceeding against Dr. LaRocca and the hospital for malpractice and negligence. At the conclusion of the administrative proceeding, Temple filed suit against the doctor and the hospital in Louisiana state court.

Synthes did not attempt to bring the doctor and the hospital into the federal action by means of a third-party complaint, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a). Instead, Synthes filed a motion to dismiss Temple's federal suit for failure to join necessary parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Following a hearing, the District Court ordered Temple to join the doctor and the hospital as defendants within 20 days or risk dismissal of the lawsuit. According to the court, the most significant reason for requiring joinder was the interest of judicial economy. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-12. The court relied on this Court's decision in Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 88 S.Ct. 733, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968), wherein we recognized that one focus of Rule 19 is "the interest of the courts and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies." Id., at 111, 88 S.Ct., at 739. When Temple failed to join the doctor and the hospital, the court dismissed the suit with prejudice.

Temple appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 898 F.2d 152 (1990) (judgt. order). The court deemed it "obviously prejudicial to the defendants to have the separate litigations being carried on," because Synthes' defense might be that the plate was not defective but that the doctor and the hospital were negligent, while the doctor and the hospital, on the other hand, might claim that they were not negligent but that the plate was de- fective. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-3. The Court of Appeals found that the claims overlapped and that the District Court therefore had not abused its discretion in ordering joinder under Rule 19. A petition for rehearing was denied.

In his petition for certiorari to this Court, Temple contends that it was error to label joint tortfeasors as indispensable parties under Rule 19(b) and to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice for failure to join those parties. We agree. Synthes does not deny that it, the doctor, and the hospital are potential joint tortfeasors. It has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit. See Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 329-330, 75 S.Ct. 865, 869, 99 L.Ed. 1122 (1955); Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co., 225 U.S. 111, 132, 32 S.Ct. 641, 644, 56 L.Ed. 1009 (1912). See also Nottingham v. General American Communications Corp., 811 F.2d 873, 880 (CA5) (per curiam ), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 854, 108 S.Ct. 158, 98 L.Ed.2d 113 (1987). Nothing in the 1966 revision of Rule 19 changed that principle. See Provident Bank, supra, 390 U.S., at 116-117, n. 12, 88 S.Ct., at 741-742, n. 12. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 19(a) explicitly state that "a tortfeasor with the usual 'joint-and-several' liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability." 28 U.S.C.App., p. 595. There is nothing in Louisiana tort law to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
475 cases
  • Pettiford v. City of Greensboro
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • May 30, 2008
    ...and indemnity are not legitimate bases for joinder of potential joint tortfeasors under Rule 19. Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 8, 111 S.Ct. 315, 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) (holding that joint tortfeasors are not required parties); United States v. County of Arlington, 669 F.2d 925, 929 (......
  • Vertrue Inc. v. Meshkin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • April 27, 2006
    ...in a single lawsuit," the Companies need not be joined here if their own liability is not at issue. Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 7, 111 S.Ct. 315, 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990); see Winchester Elec. Corp. v. General Products Corp., 198 F.Supp. 355, 358 (D.Conn. 1961) ("There is no la......
  • Cahoo v. Sas Inst. Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • March 2, 2018
    ...much less an indispensable party." PaineWebber, Inc. v. Cohen , 276 F.3d 197, 204 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Temple v. Synthes Corp. , 498 U.S. 5, 8, 111 S.Ct. 315, 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) ).The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) will be denied, because the defendants have not identified a n......
  • Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Boulder Cnty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • September 5, 2019
    ...suggest bankrupt entities are indispensable parties, but joint tortfeasors are not indispensable. See Temple v. Synthes Corp. , 498 U.S. 5, 7, 111 S.Ct. 315, 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990). Nor would it matter if Defendants have third-party claims against bankruptcy estates. See Pacor, Inc. v. Higg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Removal, Severance & Rule 21
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • December 11, 2023
    ...parties under Rule 19, and thus need not be joined in product liability litigation. The Supreme Court so held in Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam), in a case where the product liability defendant argued that they were, and thus the plaintiff’s case should be dismissed ......
3 books & journal articles
  • Separation of Powers and the Class Action
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 95, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...19. Federal courts have given Rule 19 a narrower construction than its text arguably warrants. See, e.g., Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5 (1990); Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Ctys. Joint Apprenticeship and Training Ctr., 94 F.3d 1336 (9th Cir. 1997). Rule 13, similarly, has b......
  • DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 No. 2, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...CIV. P. 19(a) (1938), but that was not the case with respect to persons who were jointly and severally liable. See Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7 (1990) (citing authority). But the distinction between "joint interests" and joint and several liability for purposes of Rule 19 has no b......
  • Ross D. Andre, Compulsory [mis]joinder: the Untenable Intersection of Sovereign Immunity and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 60-5, 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...made.”).John W. Reed, Compulsory Joinder of Parties in Civil Actions (pt. 1), 55 MICH. L. REV. 327, 330(1957).5 390 U.S. 102 (1968).6 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam).7 128 S. Ct. 2180 (2008).8 Id. at 2185–86.which held the disputed assets, filed an interpleader action to settle ownership; tw......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT