Free Order on Motion for Joinder - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

1 aw-———————-———-»—————-—;»»..——il.,-—.a.l_--1_lm.—._.l.l_;ii___.ii__ ,_
i I \Case 3:03-cv-O0 -AVC Document 14 Filed 1 2 /2003 Page 1 of 1
1 1. . :“*‘$é·‘ JET?
y .~ · * * .21
{ , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT " ~ . i
{ DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Ozbod M
3 i CRAIG CONYERS M ____ M __ _ . ... .- . ’. ’-
1
` `
3:03CV446(AVC). October 22, 2003. This is an action for a
I declaratory judgment, damages, and injunctive relief arising out
i of alleged violations of the Connecticut Truth—in—Lending Act,
N Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a—676 et se ., and 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et se .
i On March 13, 2003, the plaintiff filed the complaint. The only
f named defendant was Ludwig’s Auto Sales, LLC. The complaint
1 alleges that “[o]n or about December 17, 2002, plaintiff entered 1
é into a consumer credit transaction with defendant, which was
E later assigned to Source One Financial". On August 4, 2003, the I
5 plaintiff filed the within motion for permissive joinder of
_ parties (document no. 11) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 (a), i
g seeking to join Paula Antonucci d/b/a Ludwig's Auto Sales and i
§ Source One Financial Corp as party defendants. For the reasons
g that hereafter follow, the motion is GRANTED.
£ The plaintiff contends that Paula Antonucci d/b/a Ludwig's
L Auto Sales should be joined as a party defendant because .
“plaintiff's counsel contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles i
and was advised that the dealer’s license [for Ludwig's Auto
Sales, LLC] is in the name of Paula Antonucci d/b/a Ludwig's Auto
Sales.” Additionally, the plaintiff contends that Source One
Financial Corp should be joined as a party defendant because that 1
_ entity “has an interest in the claims that arise out of the same {
transaction.”
Fed. R. C;i.¤.:=·. P. 20 (a) provides in pertinent part: "All
persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is
L asserted against them . . . any right to relief in respect of or
arising out of the same transaction . . . and if any question of i
A law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”
R Fed. R. Civ, P. 20(a). The rule imposes two specific requisites i
; for the joinder of parties: (1) a right to relief must be §
j i asserted against each defendant arising out of the same
Q transaction; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all
. parties will arise in the action. See Wright & Miller, Federal
" Practice and Procedure § 1653 (2d Ed. 2003).
y M Applying these standards, the court concludes that the
Q Qmption sudubd be granted. The right to relief against the named I
i édefendantfand those parties that the plaintiff seeks to join as i
1 °defendanugiarises ``'` out of the December 17, 2002 transaction
i jgpteéed inte by the plaintiff and Ludwig Auto Sales, LLC. Also,
§ ggivenjthaufthe named defendant and the parties that the plaintiff 1
; `°seeksito join as defendants were-all allegedly involved in the i
dispdfedfdontract, questions of fact common to all parties will
arise in"the action. Accordingly, the court finds that both
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) are met. The motion for. ‘
permissive joinder of party defendants is therefore GRANTED. ‘ .
SO ORDERED. * t · 1*
l lllllg 1
1
Alfred . Covello, U.S.D.J. j
i- I W - —_ “ 5 `F ` F tetra-