Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Austin v. Jenkins

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

January 11, 2018

DARRYL W AUSTIN, Plaintiff,
v.
JAY JENKINS, et al, Defendants.

          ORDER AND OPINION

          MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending in the above-referenced cause is Defendant Jay Jenkins's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Document No. 6), Jenkins's Motion to Compel Joinder or, alternatively, to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) (Document No. 7), Plaintiff Darryl Austin's Response in Opposition to Jenkins's Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 8), Austin's Response in Opposition to Jenkins's Motion for Joinder (Document No. 9), and Jenkins's Reply to Austin's Response (Document No. 11). On October 25, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued her Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R) recommending that Jenkins's Motions to Dismiss be denied and that Jenkins's Motion to Compel Joinder be granted. Document No. 15. Jenkins filed no objections to the denial of his motions to dismiss, but Austin filed an objection to the Magistrate's M&R concerning the recommendations on joinder. Document No. 16. As there are no objections to the M&R concerning the recommendations on the Motions to Dismiss, the Court adopts the M&R as to those issues. Upon further review of Magistrate Judge Stacy's recommendations concerning joinder, the pleadings, Austin's objections (Document No. 16), Jenkins's response (Document No. 17), and the law, the Court concludes that Jenkins's Motion to Compel Joinder (Document No. 7) should be granted.

         BACKGROUND

         Austin filed this action against Defendants Jay Jenkins, YJ Productions and Concerts (YJ Productions), and Samuel Mumphrey (collectively “Defendants) for the alleged breach of a performance contract. In his complaint, Austin alleges that on or about October 6, 2015, he and YJ Productions agreed that Jay Jenkins would give a sixty-minute performance on December 9, 2016, at Multi-Events Arena, Ltd. d/b/a Arena Theatre and Arena Concerts GP, Inc. (Arena Theatre) located at 7326 Southwest Freeway, Houston, TX 77004. Document No. 1 at 3. After the contract was signed, Austin began promoting and advertising the performance, including selling tickets for the event. Document No. 1 at 3. Austin also paid a $30, 000 deposit to Defendants to guarantee the performance. Document No. 1 at 3. But, before the performance, Austin received word that Jenkins would not perform. Document No. 1 at 4. Austin then sent out word that the performance was cancelled and promised a refund at 100% of the ticket price for all those who had purchased tickets. Document No. 1 at 4.

         Subsequently, Austin filed suit against Defendants asserting the following claims: (1) breach of contract, (2) false representations and detrimental reliance, (3) fraud and conversion, (4) tortious interference with agreement, and (5) accounting. Document No. 1 at 5-9. In his answer, Jenkins argues that he was unaware that YJ Productions and Mumphrey had negotiated the contract on his behalf and denies that they were authorized to do so. Document No. 5 at 2-3. Jenkins also asserted counterclaims against Austin for defamation, wrongful disclosure of private facts, violations of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, and interference with prospective contractual or business relations. Document No. 5 at 8. Jenkins further asserted cross claims against YJ Productions and Mumphrey for invasion of privacy, wrongful disclosure of private facts, and interference with prospective contractual and business relations by false representation. Document No. 5 at 8. Jenkins seeks indemnity from Mumphrey and YJ Productions for any liability that may be attributed to Jenkins, or in the alternative, contribution from Mumphrey and YJ Productions for his share of the responsibility for injuries to Austin. Document No. 5 at 9.

         Jenkins then filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Document No. 6) and a Rule 19 Motion to Compel Joinder or, alternatively, a Rule 12(b)(7) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join a Party under Rule 19 (Document No. 7). In his first motion to dismiss, Jenkins argues that Austin has failed to state a claim because Jenkins had no knowledge of the underlying contract. Document No. 6. In his Motion to Compel Joinder, Jenkins argues that Arena Theatre has potential claims against the Defendants to the same extent and of the same type as Austin because of its employer/employee relationship with Austin. Further, Jenkins argues that Austin's relationship with Arena Theatre includes joint ventures that they engage in for mutual benefit, such as the once that is at issue in this case. Document No. 7. Finally, in his Rule 12(b)(7) Motion to Dismiss, Jenkins argues that Arena Theatre is an indispensable party to this action under Rule 19(b), and if joinder is not feasible for any reason, the Court must dismiss Austin's action. Document No. 7.

         DISCUSSION

         If a party files objections to the magistrate judge's M&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Here, Austin objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Arena Theatre should be joined as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2) as a counterclaim defendant. Document No. 16 at 1. Austin argues that Arena Theatre should not be made a counterclaim defendant in this case because Jenkins did not ask the Court to make Arena Theatre a counterclaim defendant and because it would be Jenkins responsibility to join Arena Theatre as a counterclaim defendant since he is the counterclaim plaintiff. Document No. 16 at 1-2. Austin further argues that Jenkins has not met his burden of establishing that Arena Theatre is a necessary party. Document No. 16 at 2.

         Under Rule 19(a)(1), the Court must join a party who is subject to process and whose joinder would not destroy the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction if:

(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1). “[T]he party advocating joinder has the initial burden of demonstrating that a missing party is necessary . . . .” Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. City of Memphis, 570 F.3d 625, 628 (5th Cir. 2009). But, “when an initial appraisal of the facts indicates that a possibly necessary party is absent, the burden of disputing this initial appraisal falls on the party who opposes joinder.” Pulitzer-Polster v. Pulitzer, 7 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.