Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 17(A) (Real Party In Interest)

58 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Clement S. Smith v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF Morrilton Sch. Dist. NO. 32
  365 F.2d 770· 8th Cir.· 1966-09-14 ·cited 120×
  The court held that while a school board's standard consolidation policy is not facially invalid, its application becomes impermissible when it results in the dismissal of teachers from a segregated school solely due to desegregation, especially when past discriminatory practices
• Pac. Coast Agric. Exp. Ass'n v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.
  526 F.2d 1196· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-11 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Sunkist's actions constituted antitrust violations and that the awarded damages and injunctive relief were appropriate.
• K-B Trucking Co. & Keith Collins v. Riss Int'l Corp. & World Leasing, Inc.
  763 F.2d 1148· 10th Cir.· 1985-05-28 ·cited 64×
  The court held that Collins was a proper plaintiff as a real party in interest and that the jury's findings of fraud and actual damages against World Leasing were supported by sufficient evidence, but the damage award against Riss was not sufficiently supported by evidence of los
• The Indus. Dev. Bd. OF the Town OF Section v. Fuqua Indus., Inc.
  523 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-24 ·cited 62×
  The court held that Van Heusen, having paid for the repairs, was subrogated to the Boards' claims against the contractor, and the trial court erred by instructing the jury solely on a third-party beneficiary theory.
• Ivana Field v. Volkswagenwerk AG
  626 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-10 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the district court's record was insufficient to determine if Ivana was an indispensable party and that the complaint could be amended to substitute Lucille as administratrix to cure defective jurisdictional allegations.
• Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago under Tr. Agreement dated January 3 v. Bailey
  750 F.2d 577· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that Chicago Investment's cross-claim should not have been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but its counterclaim was properly dismissed as it was not the real party in interest.
• Leatrice Carter v. Robert B. Berger & the Berger Grp., Inc.
  777 F.2d 1173· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that indirectly injured parties cannot sue under RICO's civil damages provision when a directly injured party (the government) has a right to recover for the full loss.
• Mason-Rust v. Laborers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO
  435 F.2d 939· 8th Cir.· 1970-12-31 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the judgment against the union, holding that while the contractor was initially the real party in interest, subsequent full reimbursement by the government divested the contractor of that status, though the union waived objection by failing to move for substitu
• Young v. Powell
  179 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1950-01-10 ·cited 36×
  A single legatee cannot sue alone to cancel deeds and recover property for an estate when other legatees and the estate representative are indispensable parties whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
• Executive JET Aviation, Inc. v. United States
  507 F.2d 508· 6th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the insurers, despite not filing their own administrative claim, are real parties in interest and the statute of limitations is tolled because Executive Jet's timely and complete administrative claim provided sufficient notice to the government.
• Am. Triticale, Inc. v. Nytco Servs., Inc.
  664 F.2d 1136· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that American was the real party in interest, the indemnity clauses did not bar claims for intentional torts, and res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to preclude the suit.
• F. & H.R. Farman-Farmaian Consulting Eng'rs Firm & Farough Farman-Farmaian v. Harza Eng'g Co.
  882 F.2d 281· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the act of state doctrine bars the suit because the confiscation of the Iranian firm's assets, including its debt claim against Harza, was complete within Iran and did not involve U.S. territory or interests protected by the extraterritoriality exception.
• Hess v. Eddy
  689 F.2d 977· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 15×
  A civil rights action is not time-barred if the real party in interest joins or ratifies the suit after the limitations period has run, provided the initial suit was filed within the period and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) applies.
• Hefley v. Jones
  687 F.2d 1383· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the contracts between Bonnett and appellees were valid assignments of the contracts between Jones and Bonnett, and that Jones breached the contract by failing to deliver the cattle.
• Chicago & Nw. Transp. Co. v. Negus-Sweenie, Inc.
  549 F.2d 47· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Negus-Sweenie waived its contention that C. & N.W. Transport was not the real party in interest by failing to raise the issue in the trial court.
• N. Am. Watch Corp. v. Princess Ermine Jewels
  786 F.2d 1447· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing counterclaims as a sanction for willful discovery violations.
• Boeing Airplane Co. v. Perry
  322 F.2d 589· 10th Cir.· 1963-09-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an assignment of a beneficiary's interest in a state-created wrongful death action to the United States, under federal compensation law, does not divest the administrator of their exclusive right to maintain the suit under state law.
• The Farm Bureau Co-Operative Mill & Supply, Inc. v. Blue Star Foods, Inc.
  238 F.2d 326· 8th Cir.· 1956-11-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the assignee of a chattel mortgage cannot sue for conversion of the property if the conversion occurred before the assignment, and that a mortgagee's consent to the sale of mortgaged property waives the lien. The court also held that the evidence supported fin
• Joyner v. F & B Enters.
  448 F.2d 1185· D.C. Cir.· 1971-07-28 ·cited 11×
  The insurer is not a real party in interest because under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, payment of benefits without a formal award creates subrogation rights only against the employee's recovery, not directly against the third-party tortfeasor.
• Bearse v. Main St. Invs.
  220 F. Supp. 2d 1338· M.D. Fla.· 2002-07-03 ·cited 10×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, recommending denial of motions to dismiss fraud claims and ordering the plaintiff to clarify the status of a trust for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
• The People OF the State OF Ill. v. Life OF Mid-America Ins. Co.
  805 F.2d 763· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Attorney General lacked standing to bring a RICO claim on behalf of Illinois consumers because the complaint did not allege injury to a quasi-sovereign interest of the state, and RICO does not permit parens patriae actions for damages.
• BIG John v. Indian Head Grain Co.
  718 F.2d 143· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-28 ·cited 10×
  A bailee's attempt to limit liability for negligence through an insurance agreement requires clear and unambiguous terms; otherwise, the evidence is inadmissible and the bailee remains liable.
• Lummis v. White
  629 F.2d 397· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the citizenship of an interested stakeholder can be considered for establishing minimal diversity under the federal interpleader statute, and that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar this interpleader action seeking prospective relief.
• Nat'l Garment Co. v. New York
  173 F.2d 32· 8th Cir.· 1949-03-10 ·cited 10×
  A bill of lading clause giving a carrier the benefit of shipper's insurance is invalid under the Interstate Commerce Act if it allows the shipper to choose whether to insure the carrier, as this constitutes indirect compensation.
• Doherty v. The Mut. Warehouse Co.
  245 F.2d 609· 5th Cir.· 1957-06-18 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as the record owner of stock, is the real party in interest and that a shareholder action to compel dividend declaration does not require all directors to be parties or fall under Rule 23(b).
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States
  290 F.2d 257· 2d Cir.· 1961-05-11 ·cited 8×
  A partial subrogee may sue in its own name to assert its claim, and the defendant can compel joinder of other parties if necessary.
• Moore v. Hechinger
  127 F.2d 746· D.C. Cir.· 1942-05-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an injured employee who accepts compensation under the Act is not the real party in interest and cannot join as a plaintiff in a suit against a third-party wrongdoer, as their rights are assigned to the employer.
• Live Ent., Inc. v. Digex, Inc.
  300 F. Supp. 2d 1273· S.D. Fla.· 2003-11-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a plaintiff who admits to lacking standing cannot substitute a real party in interest after summary judgment has been granted on that basis, as the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
• The Est. OF David L. Portnoy v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  730 F.2d 286· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a Mississippi administratrix cannot invoke the Mississippi long-arm statute to obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the underlying tort occurred against a nonresident decedent.
• United States v. McLEOD
  721 F.2d 282· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to award double damages under the False Claims Act and in awarding prejudgment interest, but correctly applied the statute of limitations and denied the motion to implead.
• Kent v. The N. Cal. Reg'l Off. OF the Am. Friends Serv. Comm.
  497 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the interpleader and injunctive relief actions because the trustees lacked standing and the interpleader statute's requirements were not met.
• Kan. Elec. Power Co. of Leavenworth v. Janis
  194 F.2d 942· 10th Cir.· 1952-02-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the joinder of insurance companies as plaintiffs related back to the original filing date, thus the action was not barred by the statute of limitations.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Robert Wulff & Caitlyn Wulff v. CMA, Inc.
  890 F.2d 1070· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Wulffs' original complaint did not state a Miller Act cause of action, and their amended complaint, based on an assignment obtained after the statute of limitations expired, did not relate back to the original complaint.
• Prevor-Mayorsohn Caribbean, Inc. v. Puerto RICO Marine Mgmt., Inc.
  620 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 5×
  A consignee or agent with a sufficient interest in damaged cargo, even if not holding legal title, can be the real party in interest under Rule 17(a) and admiralty practice, protecting the defendant from double recovery.
• Mutuelles Unies v. Kroll & Linstrom
  957 F.2d 707· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper, jury instructions were appropriate, and the admission of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion, affirming the jury verdict and pre-judgment interest award.
• Cinema N. Corp. v. Plaza AT Latham Assocs. & Hoyt's Cinema Corp.
  867 F.2d 135· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-01 ·cited 4×
  Under New York law, a partnership cannot avoid an agreement signed by its officer simply because the officer lacked written authorization, as the corporate officer exception to the statute of frauds applies to partnership officers acting within the scope of business.
• R. J. Enstrom Corp. v. Interceptor Corp. & United States
  520 F.2d 1217· 10th Cir.· 1975-08-14 ·cited 4×
  A loan receipt agreement is effective as a loan, and the insured remains the real party in interest under Rule 17(a), even when the insurers fund the litigation.
• Interstate Fire Ins. Co. v. Sayers
  468 F.2d 1361· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indemnitor's obligation is the full amount of the loss, regardless of the insurer's percentage share after reinsurance, and the insurer is the real party in interest to recover the full amount.
• Prudential OIL & Minerals Co. v. Hamlin
  277 F.2d 384· 10th Cir.· 1960-02-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff was the real party in interest and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding damages for fraudulent inducement.
• Jackson Mfg. Co. OF Miss., Inc. v. United States
  434 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), a party who made a loan with others, but in whose name the contract was made, can sue in his own name for the full amount without joining the other lenders.
• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Air Express Int'l USA, Inc.
  602 F. Supp. 2d 1260· S.D. Fla.· 2009-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Montreal Convention preempts state law claims for damage to international air cargo, and that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for liability under the Convention.
• Glacier Gen. Assurance Co. v. G. Gordon Symons Co., Ltd.
  631 F.2d 131· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Symons is liable for its subsidiary's actions and that Glacier is the real party in interest for the full amount of the loss, despite partial reimbursement from reinsurers.
• Jasper A. Gargis v. The B. F. Goodrich Co.
  386 F.2d 534· 3d Cir.· 1967-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Court orders denying motions to join subrogee insurance companies were not contrary to F.R.Civ.P. 17(a).
• McNEIL Constr. Co. v. The Livingston State Bank
  300 F.2d 88· 9th Cir.· 1962-02-05 ·cited 2×
  In Montana, a loan receipt from an insurer to an insured constitutes payment, making the insurer the real party in interest required to prosecute the action under Rule 17(a).
• Krueger v. Cartwright
  996 F.2d 928· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 1×
  A partially subrogated insurer, whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, is not an indispensable party and can be dismissed.
• Farrell Constr. Co. v. Jefferson Parish
  896 F.2d 136· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-15 ·cited 1×
  A subcontractor is not an indispensable party when the prime contractor asserts the subcontractor's damages as part of its own claim, especially when state law permits such pass-through claims and no statute grants the subcontractor direct rights against the owner.
• Cichowski Family v. CVS Health Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-31
  The court held that the pro se plaintiffs' complaint was legally and factually deficient and required an amended complaint to proceed.
• PB Legacy, Inc. v. Am. Mariculture, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-04-10
  Primo Broodstock, Inc. (later renamed PB Legacy, Inc.) and TB Food USA, LLC sued American Mariculture, Inc. and related defendants over disputes involving the breeding and grow-out of disease-resistant shrimp, alleging breach of a nondisclosure agreement and grow-out agreement, d
• Barker v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins.
  141 F.R.D. 11· N.D. Fla.· 1995-06-15
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to substitute the Estate of Stacey Lynn Barker as the real party in interest.
• Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Env't Prot. Comm'n
  837 F. Supp. 413· M.D. Fla.· 1993-11-15
  A plaintiff acting as an agent has standing to sue on behalf of the principal, and a local government agency is not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for § 1983 claims.