McKnight v. Poirel ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                  UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-1494
    JESSE MCKNIGHT,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RUBY POIREL,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    WALTER ROBINSON, t/a Calvert Realty Company,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-97-3889-JFM)
    Submitted:     October 8, 1999                 Decided:   November 9, 1999
    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Saul E. Kerpelman, SAUL E. KERPELMAN & ASSOCIATES, Baltimore, Mary-
    land, for Appellant. Thomas K. Lehrich, Sean D. Hummel, Washing-
    ton, D.C., for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Jesse McKnight appeals from the district court's June 29,
    1998, order rescinding its previous order of April 24, 1998, which
    allowed him to amend his complaint to add Walter Robinson t/a
    Calvert Realty as a defendant.   McKnight argues that the court did
    not retain jurisdiction to rescind its order or strike Robinson as
    a defendant.   Finding no error, we affirm.
    We find that the court retained jurisdiction to reconsider,
    rescind, or modify its previous non-dispositive order. See Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 21; Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 
    659 F.2d 551
    , 553 (5th Cir.
    Unit A Oct. 1981).   We also find that the court properly balanced
    the equitable interests in determining that Robinson should not be
    added as a party based upon McKnight's failure to serve Robinson;
    the lack of proof that Robinson was presently a non-diverse,
    necessary, and indispensable party; and the fact that McKnight may
    have sought the joinder to defeat diversity jurisdiction. See Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 19; Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 
    833 F.2d 1179
    , 1182 (5th
    Cir. 1987).
    We therefore affirm the judgment.        We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1494

Filed Date: 11/9/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014