498 U.S. 5 (1990)
In October 1986, petitioner Temple, a Mississippi resident, underwent surgery at St. Charles General Hospital in New Orleans, Louisiana, performed by Dr. S. Henry LaRocca.1 During the procedure, a plate and screw device manufactured by respondent Synthes Corp., Ltd. (U. S. A.), a Pennsylvania corporation, was implanted in Temple's lower spine.2 Following the surgery, the device's screws broke off inside Temple's back.3
Temple filed a diversity action against Synthes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging defective design and manufacture of the device.4 At the same time, Temple filed a state administrative proceeding against Dr. LaRocca and the hospital for malpractice and negligence.5 At the conclusion of the administrative proceeding, Temple filed suit against the doctor and the hospital in Louisiana state court.6
Synthes moved to dismiss the federal action for failure to join necessary parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, rather than filing a third-party complaint under Rule 14(a).7 The District Court ordered Temple to join the doctor and hospital as defendants within twenty days or face dismissal, emphasizing judicial economy.8 When Temple did not comply, the court dismissed the suit with prejudice.9
Temple appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's decision.10 The Fifth Circuit concluded that separate litigations would be prejudicial to the defendants due to potentially overlapping and conflicting defenses.11 A petition for rehearing was denied.12
Temple then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.13
Whether joint tortfeasors are indispensable parties under Rule 19(b) whose joinder must be ordered before a diversity action alleging defective design and manufacture may proceed?14
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and longstanding precedent establish that joint tortfeasors are not indispensable parties.15 It has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.16 Nothing in the 1966 revision of Rule 19 changed that principle.17 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 19(a) explicitly state that a tortfeasor with the usual joint-and-several liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability.18
No. The established facts demonstrate that Synthes, Dr. LaRocca, and the hospital qualify as potential joint tortfeasors in connection with the broken plate and screw device implanted in Temple's spine.19
Temple pursued his defective design and manufacture claims against Synthes in federal court while separately pursuing malpractice claims against the doctor and hospital in state proceedings.20 Because these parties share joint and several liability under Louisiana tort law, Rule 19(a) treats them as permissive rather than necessary parties.21
The District Court therefore lacked any basis for ordering Temple to join them as defendants in the federal action.22 The Fifth Circuit compounded the error by affirming the dismissal on grounds of potential prejudice from overlapping defenses.23 The interest in judicial economy cited by the lower courts does not override the clear command of the rule that joint tortfeasors need not be joined in a single action.24
Joint tortfeasors are not indispensable parties under Rule 19(b) whose joinder must be ordered before a diversity action alleging defective design and manufacture may proceed.25
Whether a district court may dismiss an action with prejudice when the plaintiff fails to join joint tortfeasors after being ordered to do so?26
Because the threshold requirements of Rule 19(a) have not been satisfied when the absent parties are merely permissive joint tortfeasors, no inquiry under Rule 19(b) is necessary.27 A district court therefore abuses its discretion by ordering joinder of such parties and dismissing the action for failure to comply with that order.28
No. The District Court ordered Temple to join the doctor and hospital within twenty days or face dismissal, relying on considerations of judicial economy drawn from Provident Tradesmens Bank.29 When Temple did not join those parties, the court dismissed the suit with prejudice.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding it obviously prejudicial to have separate litigations.30 However, because the doctor and hospital were only permissive parties as joint tortfeasors, the initial order to join them was erroneous.31 Consequently, the dismissal with prejudice cannot stand, and the case must be remanded for further proceedings without the improper joinder requirement.32
A district court may not dismiss an action with prejudice when the plaintiff fails to join joint tortfeasors after being ordered to do so.33