Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/302

 546US1

Unit: $U10

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

Cite as: 546 U. S. 81 (2005)

91

Opinion of the Court

inated the Roches’ apartment, see supra, at 86, it does indeed appear that no absent person, formally or practically, was “[n]eeded for [j]ust [a]djudication.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19; cf. Simpson, 608 F. 2d, at 1174 (diverse corporate defendant accepted full liability for any eventual adverse judgment; nondiverse subsidiary need not be joined as a defendant, al­ though arguably it had joint liability with its parent); 16 J. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.14[2][c], p. 107–67 (3d ed. 2005) (hereinafter Moore) (“In general, the plaintiff is the master of the complaint and has the option of naming only those parties the plaintiff chooses to sue, subject only to the rules of joinder [of] necessary parties.”). While Rule 17(a) applies only to joinder of parties who assert claims, the Court of Appeals and the Roches draw from decisions of this Court a jurisdictional “real parties to the controversy” rule applicable in diversity cases to com­ plaining and defending parties alike. See Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee, 446 U. S. 458, 462, n. 9 (1980) (citing Note, Di­ versity Jurisdiction over Unincorporated Business Entities: The Real Party in Interest as a Jurisdictional Rule, 56 Texas L. Rev. 243, 247–250 (1978)). But no decision called to our attention supports the burden the Court of Appeals placed on a properly joined defendant to negate the existence of a potential codefendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity. III Our decisions employing “real party to the controversy” terminology in describing or explaining who counts and who can be discounted for diversity purposes bear scant resem­ blance to the action the Roches have commenced. No party here has been “improperly or collusively” named solely to create federal jurisdiction, see 28 U. S. C. § 1359 (“A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.”); Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U. S. 823, 830