Case Strategies Group, LLC v. Doyle Dennis Avery LLP et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DOYLE DENNIS AVERY LLP F/K/A
DOYLE DENNIS LLP, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. H-24-5031
CASE STRATEGIES GROUP, LLC, et
al.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
The plaintiff, Case Strategies Group, LLC, has moved to add a new party, SILAC Insurance
Company, to this lawsuit. (Docket Entry No. 22). The defendants, Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and
Ethan’s Glen Community Association Inc., oppose the motion. (Docket Entry No. 29).
Case Strategies argues that “SILAC is a necessary and proper party to this litigation,”
(Docket Entry No. 30 at 1), because it “has claims that relate to and/or involve the collection of
the accounts receivable and relate to the Agreement that is the subject of this suit.” (Docket Entry
No. 22 at 3). 	The defendants respond that SILAC “can instead chose to either seek leave to
intervene in an existing lawsuit or simply just file a standalone lawsuit.” (Docket Entry No. 29 at
2). 	They argue that because the underlying basis for Case Strategies’s claims “will soon be
challenged by summary judgment,” the court should deny the motion for leave to add SILAC as a
party or defer ruling on it until after granting or denying the motions for summary judgment. (Id.
at 3).
Case Strategies’s motion for leave to amend to add SILAC, (Docket Entry No. 22), is
denied, without prejudice, for two reasons. 	First, it is procedurally improper. 	Rule 19(a)(2)
governs Case Strategies’s motion, which seeks to join an absent plaintiff who has not brought
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-05031 Document 34 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
claims against the defendants. See 7 W RIGHT & M ILLER’ S FEDERAL P RACTICE & PROCEDURE §
1606 (3d ed. 1998). Rule 19(a)(2) provides that “[a] person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may
be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)(2).
Although the Rules do not define “a proper case,” the paradigm case for joining an involuntary
plaintiff is Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corporation of America, 269 U.S. 459
(1926). In that case, the Court ruled that a patent owner who refused to join an infringement action
brought by his exclusive licensee could be made an involuntary plaintiff. See id. at 468 (“If the
owner of a patent, being within the jurisdiction, refuses or is unable to join an exclusive licensee
as coplaintiff, the licensee may make him a party defendant by process, and he will be lined up by
the court in the party character which he should assume.”). Based on Independent Wireless and
the Committee Note to Rule 19(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “authorization in
Rule 19(a)(2) to join a party as an involuntary plaintiff can be invoked only when the party sought
to be joined has a duty to allow plaintiff to use his name in the action.” WRIGHT & M ILLER § 1606.
The Fifth Circuit has adopted this approach to Rule 19(a)(2). See Eikel v. States Marine
Lines, Inc., 473 F.2d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 1973) (“The ‘proper case’ is meant to cover only those
instances where the absent party has either a duty to allow the plaintiff to use his name in the action
or some sort of an obligation to join plaintiff in the action.”). The court reasoned that the “law
generally disfavors forced joinder of a party as a plaintiff with whatever procedural handicaps that
normally entails,” for “[u]nder our adversary system the general rule is that only the party who
initiates the lawsuit should be saddled with the procedural burdens of a plaintiff.” Id. Unless the
“proper case” exception applies, “the preferred method is to designate and serve involuntary
parties as defendants, regardless of their appropriate interest alignment.” Id.
Case 4:24-cv-05031 Document 34 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
The “proper case” exception does not apply here. The parties have not explained SILAC’s
role, but it appears that SILAC has an interest in some of the disputed receivables and in the
interpretation of the parties’ agreement because it is an affiliate of Case Strategies and an assignee
under the agreement. Although claims arising from an assignor-assignee relationship are similar
to the paradigm “proper case” for adding a plaintiff, see W RIGHT & M ILLER § 1606, Case Strategies
is the assignor (not, as in Independent Wireless, the assignee). Case Strategies has not explained
why or how it has a relationship with SILAC that would allow Case Strategies to “use [SILAC’s]
name in the action.” Eikel, 473 F.2d at 962.
Second, Case Strategies’s motion does not satisfy Rule 19’s requirements for joinder. A
party is necessary or indispensable under Rule 19 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)(A)–(B).
None of these requirements applies to SILAC.
First, Rule 19(a)(1)(A) does not apply because Case Strategies can recover fully if SILAC
is not joined. 	Case Strategies sues for quantum meruit, breach of contract, money had and
received, and unjust enrichment. 	(Docket Entry No. 20 at 4–5). 	Case Strategies can recover
damages based on these causes of action without SILAC’s presence in the lawsuit, because they
seek damages that the defendants allegedly owe. See Harrison Co., LLC v. A-Z Wholesalers, Inc.,
No. 3:19-CV-1057-B, 2020 WL 918749, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2020) (“[T]he Court can award
complete relief to Harrison without adding Imperial because Harrison has asked only for damages
Case 4:24-cv-05031 Document 34 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
stemming from the alleged breach of the Credit Agreement.”). Case Strategies does not explain
what, if any, part of its claims it assigned to SILAC or how its absence affects Case Strategies’s
ability to recover. The defendants do not invoke Rule 19 as a protection against the risk of double
recovery.
Second, Rule 19(a)(1)(B) does not apply because SILAC has not yet “claim[ed] an interest
relating to the subject of the action.” Rajet Aeroservicios S.A. de C.V. v. Castillo Cervantes, 801
F. App’x 239, 246 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 19(a)(1)(B)). “[T]he fact
that an absent party does not seek joinder on its own is indicative of its lack of interest in the
subject matter of the suit.” Woodard v. Woodard Villa, Inc., No. CV 15-1777, 2016 WL 1298995,
at *4 (W.D. La. Mar. 31, 2016); see Colbert v. First NBC Bank, No. CIV.A. 13-3043, 2014 WL
1329834, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 31, 2014) (“[T]o be a required party under Rule 19(a)(1)(B) because
of an interest in the subject matter of the action, the party must assert its own interest.”).
This record does not support Case Strategies’s motion for leave to amend to join SILAC
as a party plaintiff. If Case Strategies wants SILAC to join this dispute, it may provide SILAC
with notice of this lawsuit and invite it to intervene or agree to be bound by the judgment. See
Flettrich v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV. 1:07CV1080HSORH, 2008 WL 682407, at *2
(S.D. Miss. Mar. 7, 2008). If SILAC elects not to intervene, but Case Strategies can later establish
that SILAC is a necessary or indispensable party, it may renew its motion to amend to join SILAC.
On the present record, Case Strategies’s motion for leave to amend to add SILAC, (Docket Entry
No. 22), is denied.
SIGNED on March 25, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
_______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Senior United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-05031 Document 34 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4