Mastercard International Inc. v. Visa International Service Ass'n
471 F.3d 377 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-party to a contract is not a 'necessary party' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) if the potential impairment to its interests or the risk of inconsistent obligations for existing parties is caused by a defendant's own conduct of entering into conflicting contracts, rather than by the non-party's absence from the litigation.
Facts:
- For sixteen years, MasterCard had a contractual relationship with Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to sponsor the World Cup.
- In 2002, MasterCard and FIFA entered into a contract which allegedly included a 'first right to acquire' provision, giving MasterCard a right of first refusal for sponsorship rights for the 2010 and 2014 World Cups.
- Pursuant to this provision, FIFA and MasterCard negotiated an agreement for the 2007-2014 sponsorship cycle, which MasterCard alleges it signed and returned to FIFA on March 3, 2006.
- While negotiating with MasterCard, FIFA was also negotiating with Visa International Service Association (Visa) for the same sponsorship rights.
- On April 5, 2006, FIFA's president informed MasterCard that FIFA had entered into a contract with Visa, granting Visa the exclusive sponsorship rights for FIFA competitions through 2014.
- Upon learning of the deal, MasterCard notified both FIFA and Visa that it considered FIFA's action a violation of its right of first refusal.
- On April 10, 2006, Visa issued a press release announcing its contract with FIFA.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff-appellee MasterCard International Incorporated sued defendant Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of contract.
- Non-party Visa International Service Association sent a letter to the district court arguing it was a necessary and indispensable party and that the case should be dismissed.
- The district court construed Visa's letter as a motion to dismiss under FRCP 19 and denied it, finding Visa was not a necessary party.
- Visa filed a notice of appeal of the district court's Rule 19 order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- Visa also filed a motion to intervene in the district court action under FRCP 24, which the district court denied as untimely and meritless.
- Visa then appealed the denial of its motion to intervene to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which consolidated the two appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a non-party who has a separate contract with a defendant for the same subject matter as the plaintiff's contract a 'necessary party' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a), such that its absence from the lawsuit impairs its ability to protect its interests or subjects the existing parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations?
Opinions:
Majority - Pooler, Circuit Judge
No, a non-party in this situation is not a 'necessary party' under FRCP 19(a). A party is only necessary if its absence from the litigation is the cause of potential harm to its interests or the risk of inconsistent obligations. Here, any potential harm to Visa's contractual interests or any risk of inconsistent obligations for FIFA is a direct result of FIFA allegedly entering into conflicting contracts with two different parties, not a result of Visa's absence from the current lawsuit. Visa's ability to protect its interests is not impaired by its absence, as it can still sue FIFA for breach of its separate contract. Similarly, any risk of inconsistent obligations for FIFA is self-inflicted and not a consequence of Visa's non-joinder. Because Visa is not a necessary party under Rule 19(a), it cannot be an indispensable party under Rule 19(b), and the district court's refusal to dismiss the case was correct.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the 'necessary party' doctrine under FRCP 19 in the context of conflicting contracts. The court's emphasis on causation—that the harm must stem from the party's absence rather than the defendant's underlying conduct—prevents defendants from using their own double-dealing to manufacture a reason for dismissal. This ruling is significant because it prevents a party who may have created a legal mess from using a procedural rule to escape liability, particularly when joinder of the third party would destroy the court's diversity jurisdiction. The case establishes a precedent that a party's remedy for a breach of its own contract lies in a separate suit against the breaching party, not in derailing a prior-in-time suit between the breaching party and another claimant.
Unlock the full brief for Mastercard International Inc. v. Visa International Service Ass'n