Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Faunce v. Bird
Citation: 52 F. App'x 401Docket: No. 02-35228; D.C. No. CV-01-01048-BR
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 10, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
David W. Faunce, a California prisoner and trust beneficiary, appeals the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his diversity action against trustee and investor defendants, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and an accounting. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the district court’s Rule 19 determination for abuse of discretion, affirming the dismissal. Faunce argues that joining his co-beneficiary brother, an Oregon resident, would not destroy diversity because not all defendants are from Oregon. However, the district court correctly concluded that adding Faunce’s brother would destroy diversity jurisdiction, as some defendants are Oregon citizens, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332's requirement for complete diversity. Faunce acknowledges his brother is a necessary party but asserts he cannot pursue the action in state court because Oregon lacks jurisdiction over New York citizens. The district court found that both Faunce and his brother have an adequate remedy in state court, particularly since all claims fall under Oregon state trust law, and the trust specifies that the Circuit Court of Oregon in Josephine County can appoint successor trustees. Consequently, the district court dismissed the action for nonjoinder of an indispensable party and appropriately refrained from ruling on any pending motions or Faunce's requests for entry of default against the New York defendants. The decision is affirmed and is not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.