引用本案的判決

Synthes Corp., Inc., 498 U.S. 5 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990), where the plaintiff filed a diversity suit in federal court against a manufacturer, alleging defective design and manufacture of a medical device used on plaintiff, and simultaneous suit

Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990). In Temple , the plaintiff was injured after surgery that implanted a device into his spine that broke inside his body. See id. at 5 , 111 S.Ct. 315 .

Plaintiffs rely mainly on case law of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 19(a), and the cases of Pujol, supra, and Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990).

Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) (emphasis added); see also Park v. Didden, 695 F.2d 626, 631 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Ginsburg, J.)

Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 *156 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990).

(citing Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 8 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990)).

Synthes Corp., — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) (per curiam). In the prior opinion, the Court weighed the factors set forth in Rule 19(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v.

The Supreme Court has validated this in Temple v. Synthes.

See Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S.Ct. 315, 316 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990); Nottingham, 811 F.2d at 880-81 ; Bedel v. Thompson, 103 F.R.D. 78, 80 (S.D.Ohio 1984).

Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 *25 (1990), a medical patient filed a federal court suit for products liability against a manufacturer and a state court suit for medical malpractice and negligence against a hospital and a doctor

Analysis Plaintiff's motion fails to acknowledge Temple v. Synthes Corp, 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam), which controls this case.

See Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 8 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) (per curiam) (“Here, no inquiry under Rule 19(b) is necessary, because the threshold requirements of Rule 19(a) have not been satisfied.

Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990).

Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) (“It has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.”).

See Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) (per curiam).

See, e.g., Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990); Samaha v. Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, 757 F.2d 529 , 531 (2d Cir.1985); Jerez v. Cooper, 2003 WL 22126893 , *1 (S.D.N.Y. September 12, 2003).

Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 8 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) (Rule 19 analysis is a sequence of discrete questions); Provident Tradesmens, 390 U.S. at 116 n. 12, 88 S.Ct. 733 (stressing the pragmatic aspect of the Rule 19 analysis).

Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990). 7 Nor does the district court’s failure to join CMS subject the State to inconsistent legal obligations.

Corp., 920 F.2d 1121, 1123 (2d Cir.1990)); see also, e.g., Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 8 , 111 S.Ct. 315, 316 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990); Rose v. Simms, 95 Civ. 1466, 1995 WL 702307 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.29, 1995); 7 C. Wright & A.

Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990). In Temple , the Court held that potential joint tortfeasors were only permissive parties, not necessary parties. Id. at 8 , 111 S.Ct. at 316 .

Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S.Ct. 315, 316 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990); Lynch v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 710 F.2d 1194, 1198 (6th Cir.1983).

Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7, 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990). The “impair or impede” and “multiple liability” components of Maryland Rule 2-211(a)(2) focus on the concerns of the absent party and the liabilities of the defendants.

See Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 7 , 111 S. Ct. 315 , 112 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1990). On this issue, the Court finds persuasive the decision in Microsoft Corp. v.

Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7-8, 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) (per curiam) (noting that “it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit”); MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v.

Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 , 111 S.Ct. 315 , 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990). If the person cannot be joined, the court must determine whether “equity and good conscience” will permit the action to proceed. Fed. R.Civ.P. 19(a).