David shares an update about Rule 19 Joinders and the Third Circuit
David, did you read any interesting opinions this week?
Thanks for asking Matt. I did read an interesting opinion or for those who practice in the federal courts regularly, I think you should take a look at an opinion from the Third Circuit last week, Epsilon Energy USA v. Chesapeake Appalachia. Doesn't sound exciting, but it's about Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, which deals with joinder of required parties.
I know still doesn't sound that interesting. But I'm telling you, you should read it. It's a very well written opinion by Judge Matey of the Third Circuit. If for no other reason, the writing is worth reading. But beyond that, it deals with when a party is required to be joined in a civil action. And the opinion itself dives very deep into the historical analysis of the rule all the way back to Merry old England.
And I think that the analysis overall is really useful for civil practitioners and for anyone practicing in the federal courts. These days, if there was a gray area, you're at least going to have to address to the court, how that historically has been analyzed. Maybe that's not how the court actually deals with it, but that's going to have to be addressed these days. And I think this opinion not only is really important for civil practitioners, but I think for practitioners generally wondering how to address the federal courts in modern times, it's really important.
So check it out. If you're a federal practitioner.
That's awesome advice. And that's actually. Quite pertinent to us at Sullivan Simon, because we're practicing in the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Eighth Circuits now.
Are we? Got up to date man. Let's go. Oh. We've got work to do. All right guys. See you later. We got some briefs to write, thanks for watching.