Arizona Alliance For Community Health Centers v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Arizona Alliance For Community Health No. CV-19-00517-TUC-JGZ Centers, et al., 10 ORDER Plaintiffs, [11] v. [12] Arizona Health Care Cost Containment 13 System, et al., 14 Defendants. [15] 16 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Join the Centers for Medicare and 17 Medicaid Services (CMS) as a Defendant, filed by Defendants Arizona Health Care Cost 18 Containment System and Carmen Heredia (collectively AHCCCS). (Doc. 97.) AHCCCS 19 argues the Court should join CMS as a defendant under Rules 19 and 20 of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure, (Id. at 1), so CMS can “provide and defend the administrative 21 record that . . . must be examined to determine whether the approvals of Arizona’s state 22 plan and [state plan amendments (SPAs)] are entitled to Chevron deference,” (Id. at 11). 23 Plaintiffs filed a Response opposing the Motion, (Doc. 103), and AHCCCS filed a Reply, 24 (Doc. 105). CMS filed a Response, opposing joinder and disclaiming interest in this 25 action, (see Doc. 107 at 7, 9–10), and AHCCCS filed a Reply, (Doc. 113). In its Reply, 26 AHCCCS concedes joinder under Rule 19 does not apply because CMS has disclaimed 27 interest in this action. (Id. at 1.) Therefore, the Court need only address AHCCCS’s 28 request for joinder of CMS pursuant to Rule 20. For the reasons discussed in this Order, 1 the Court concludes that permissive joinder under Rule 20 is improper, and the Court will 2 deny AHCCCS’s Motion. 3 Rule 20(a)(2) allows courts to join an absent party as a defendant only if two 4 conditions are present: 5 (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of 6 the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and [7] (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will 8 arise in the action. [9] Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (emphasis added). This Rule requires that a party assert a right to [10] relief against a defendant to allow joinder. 7 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, [11] Federal Practice and Procedure § 1657 (3d ed. 2023). Yet a defendant has no right to [12] insist that a plaintiff join all persons who could be joined. 4 Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s [13] Federal Practice § 20.02 (3d ed. 2023); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 , 94 [14] (2005) (“It was not incumbent on [the defendant] to propose as additional defendants [15] persons the [plaintiffs], as masters of their complaint, permissively might have joined.”). [16] If a defendant asserts a counterclaim or crossclaim, then it is considered a plaintiff for the [17] purposes of joinder and it may join the parties against which it asserts claims. See Moore [18] et al., supra, § 20.02; Nixon v. Guzzetta, 272 F.R.D. 260, 262 (D.D.C. 2011) (“The [19] language of Rule 20(a)(2) confirms that the rule is not a means for defendants to join [20] additional parties where the defendant has not asserted any counterclaims or [21] crossclaims.”). Moreover, even when the conditions of Rule 20 are met, courts may deny [22] permissive joinder if it conflicts with the principles of fundamental fairness or would [23] cause prejudice. Visendi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 733 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Cir. 2013). [24] Under Rule 20, joinder of CMS is improper because no party has asserted a claim [25] against CMS. On the contrary, “Plaintiffs assert that AHCCCS, and AHCCCS alone, has [26] violated their Medicaid Act payment rights through the implementation of Arizona’s [27] State Plan and SPAs.” (Doc. 103 at 20.) Similarly, AHCCCS asserts no counterclaim or [28] crossclaim against CMS. 1 AHCCCS argues that denying joinder would cause inefficiency, unfairness, and || prejudice, and the Court should construe Rule 20 liberally to avoid these ends. (See Doc. 97 at 10-11.) However, an analysis of whether permissive joinder would be unfair or 4|| cause prejudice is unnecessary because the conditions of Rule 20 are not met. See Fed. R. || Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Visendi, 733 F.3d at 870 . And, even assuming denying joinder would, as 6 || AHCCCS contends, cause delay and make discovery more difficult, (see Doc. 113 at 6), 7\| the Court cannot construe Rule 20 so broadly as to ignore its plain wording. See 4 8 || Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1029 (3d ed. || 2023) Gudges should not ignore the plain wording of a rule to effectuate the just, speedy, 10 || and inexpensive determination of an action). 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that AHCCCS’s Motion to Join CMS as a 13 || Defendant (Doc. 97) is denied. 14 Dated this 7th day of May, 2023. [15] 16 □ 17 pote Spe 18 ; Honorable Jennife Me Zfpps United States District Judge [28] -3-