## Facts

- Torrington, a Delaware corporation, employed Mark Yost for many years and required him to sign a confidentiality agreement barring disclosure of Torrington’s confidential information and trade secrets.
- Yost left Torrington and began working for INA Bearing Company, Inc. (INA), a competitor that produced similar bearing products, including thrust bearings.
- Torrington sued Yost in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging breach of the confidentiality agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets.
- Torrington sought damages and broad injunctive relief, including an order barring Yost from working in any INA plant producing thrust bearings for 18 months and requiring return of confidential materials from Yost and persons connected to him.
- Yost moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, arguing INA was a required and indispensable party because the requested injunction would directly affect INA’s contractual and business interests.
- Joinder of INA would destroy diversity because Torrington and INA were both Delaware corporations.

## Issues

1. Whether INA was a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) given the requested injunction affecting Yost’s employment at INA and related obligations.
2. If INA was required but could not be joined without defeating diversity jurisdiction, whether Rule 19(b) required dismissal.

## Decision

- The court granted Yost’s Rule 19 motion and dismissed the action.
- INA was a required party under Rule 19(a) because the requested relief would materially affect INA’s interests and could subject Yost to inconsistent obligations.
- Under Rule 19(b), INA was indispensable because proceeding without INA would prejudice INA and Yost, and a judgment limited to Yost would be inadequate.
- The availability of a state-court forum where INA could be joined supported dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 19(a), a nonparty must be joined if, in its absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among existing parties, or if the nonparty claims an interest such that adjudication without it may impair that interest or expose existing parties to multiple or inconsistent obligations.
- A new employer may be more than a mere joint tortfeasor in a trade secret case when the plaintiff seeks employment-restricting injunctive relief that directly burdens the employer’s contractual and operational interests.
- Under Rule 19(b), if joinder is not feasible, the court weighs prejudice, the ability to shape relief to reduce prejudice, the adequacy of a judgment rendered without the absent party, and whether an adequate alternative forum exists.
- Where the absent employer could continue to benefit from alleged trade secret use and would not be bound by an injunction against the employee alone, the employer’s absence can render relief inadequate and support indispensability.
- If an indispensable party cannot be joined without eliminating subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissal is required.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Torrington’s diversity action because the requested injunction would directly affect INA’s employment and business interests, making INA an indispensable party under Rule 19; joinder was not feasible because it would defeat diversity, leaving Torrington to pursue relief in a forum where INA could be joined.


Torrington Co. v. Yost, 139 F.R.D. 91 (D.S.C. 1991)