Torrington Company v. Yost
139 F.R.D. 91 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, a new employer is an indispensable party to a trade secrets lawsuit if the relief sought against the former employee would impair the new employer's interests or subject the employee to inconsistent obligations, requiring dismissal if the new employer's joinder would destroy the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Facts:
- From 1982 to 1990, Mark Yost worked for The Torrington Company, a manufacturer of bearings.
- While employed at Torrington, Yost signed an agreement promising not to divulge the company's secret or confidential information.
- After leaving Torrington, Yost began working for INA Bearing Company, Inc., a direct competitor that produces the same type of bearings.
- Yost has an employment contract with his new employer, INA.
Procedural Posture:
- The Torrington Company filed suit against its former employee, Mark Yost, in United States District Court.
- Torrington's complaint sought an injunction to limit Yost's employment at INA for 18 months and requested actual damages for alleged use of trade secrets.
- Yost, the defendant, filed a motion to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 for failure to join an indispensable party, his new employer, INA.
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 new employer an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 in a trade secrets lawsuit brought by a former employer, requiring dismissal for nonjoinder if joining the new employer would destroy the court's diversity jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Herlong
Yes. A new employer is an indispensable party whose joinder is required, and the action must be dismissed if that joinder is not feasible. The court applied the two-step analysis under Rule 19. First, under Rule 19(a), INA is a necessary party that should be joined because an injunction limiting Yost's employment would impair INA's interest in its employment contract and would subject Yost to inconsistent obligations between a court order and his contractual duties to INA. However, joining INA is not feasible because both Torrington and INA are Delaware corporations, which would destroy the court's diversity jurisdiction. Second, applying the four factors of Rule 19(b) to determine if the case can proceed without INA, the court found dismissal is required. Factor 1: Prejudice to Yost and INA is high. Factor 2: Prejudice cannot be lessened through protective provisions in a judgment, as any injunction would limit how INA can use its employee. Factor 3: A judgment without INA would be inadequate, as INA could continue to use any trade secrets it already possesses. Factor 4: The plaintiff, Torrington, has an adequate remedy in state court where it can sue both Yost and INA.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical function of Rule 19 in determining the necessary composition of a lawsuit, even at the cost of federal jurisdiction. It establishes that in trade secret litigation, where a plaintiff seeks to enjoin an ex-employee's work for a competitor, the new employer is almost always a necessary, and often indispensable, party. The decision forces plaintiffs to anticipate joinder issues and recognize that state court may be the only appropriate forum for such disputes, thereby preventing a plaintiff from strategically excluding a party to maintain a federal forum.
Unlock the full brief for Torrington Company v. Yost