Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/301

 546US1

90

Unit: $U10

[09-04-08 12:14:58] PAGES PGT: OPIN

LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. v. ROCHE Opinion of the Court

evenly balanced, however. An in-state plaintiff may invoke diversity jurisdiction, but § 1441(b) bars removal on the basis of diversity if any “part[y] in interest properly joined and served as [a] defendan[t] is a citizen of the State in which [the] action is brought.” 6 In the instant case, Virginia plain­ tiffs Christophe and Juanita Roche joined and served no Vir­ ginian as a party defendant. Hence the action qualiﬁed for the removal defendants effected. Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), captioned “Real Party in Interest,” nor Rule 19, captioned “Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication,” requires plaintiffs or defendants to name and join any additional parties to this action. Both Rules, we note, address party joinder, not federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction. See Rule 82 (“[The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] shall not be con­ strued to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the United States district courts . . . .”); Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19, 28 U. S. C. App., pp. 696–698. Rule 17(a) directs that “[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” (Emphasis added.) That Rule, as its text displays, speaks to joinder of plaintiffs, not defendants. Rule 19 provides for the joinder of parties who should or must take part in the litigation to achieve a “[j]ust [a]djudi­ cation.” See Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U. S. 102, 118–123 (1968). The Roches place no reliance on Rule 19 and maintain that the Rule “played no part, explicitly or implicitly, in the Court of Appeals’ con­ clusion.” Brief for Respondents 36. Given Lincoln’s admis­ sion that it managed Westﬁeld Village when mold contam­ 6

Although we have not addressed the issue, several lower courts have held that the presence of a diverse but in-state defendant in a removed action is a “procedural” defect, not a “jurisdictional” bar, and that the defect is waived if not timely raised by the plaintiff. See 14C C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3739, pp. 451– 457, and nn. 32–37 (3d ed. 1998).