## Facts

- Private claimants asserted ownership of land in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, but were not in possession.
- The claimants sued Shell Oil Company in federal court (diversity jurisdiction), seeking (1) eviction and (2) an accounting for oil, gas, and other minerals removed from the land.
- Shell operated on the land under a mineral lease from the Board of Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District, which claimed title and was in possession.
- The claimants and the Levee Board were Louisiana citizens; joining the Levee Board would destroy complete diversity.
- Shell moved to dismiss on the ground that the Levee Board was an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
- The district court dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction; the claimants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Orleans Levee Board, as Shell’s lessor and a rival claimant to title and possession, was a required and indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
2. If the Levee Board was indispensable, whether the action had to be dismissed because joinder would defeat diversity jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held the Levee Board was a required party under Rule 19(a) because it claimed a direct interest in the land and mineral proceeds, and its absence risked impairing that interest and exposing Shell to multiple or inconsistent obligations.
- Because joinder was not feasible without destroying diversity, the court applied Rule 19(b) and concluded that, in equity and good conscience, the case could not proceed without the Levee Board.
- The court noted plaintiffs had an adequate alternative forum (state court) where all interested parties could be joined.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 19(a) requires joinder, if feasible, of a person who claims an interest in the action when disposition in the person’s absence may impair that interest or subject existing parties to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.
- When joinder is not feasible, Rule 19(b) requires a pragmatic assessment (including prejudice, ability to shape relief, adequacy of judgment, and adequacy of alternative remedies) to decide whether the case should proceed or be dismissed.
- In disputes seeking eviction and mineral accounting where an absent lessor is in possession and claims title, the lessor is typically indispensable because adjudication would materially affect the lessor’s property interests and may create conflicting obligations for the lessee.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the Orleans Levee Board’s claimed ownership and possession made it an indispensable party to an eviction-and-accounting suit against its mineral lessee; because joining the Board would defeat diversity, the federal action was properly dismissed.


Schutten v. Shell Oil Co., 421 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1970)