3Cir. 1972) nor
Macklin v. Butler
, 553 F.2d 525 (7
Cir. 1977) held that a district court may not join defendants to an action. Like the mistaken defendants in another case, Doe Defendants thusplace the sole burden on the plaintiffs apparently without recognizing that …
theCourt itself may join additional parties under Rules 19 and 21
. Failure by theplaintiffs to name possible Rule 19 parties in the original complaint does notrender the complaint defective warranting dismissal. Because the defendantsassert the absence of certain possible defendants as grounds for objecting to thecomplaint rather than as a motion to join additional parties, the motion to dismissthe complaint for the alleged failure to name as original parties additional possibledefendants is denied.
School Dist. of Kansas City, Mo. v. State of Mo.
, 460 F. Supp. 421, 442-43 (W.D. Mo. 1978)(emphasis added) (disapproved on other grounds by
Bd. of Educ. of City of Peoria, Sch. Dist. No.150 v. Illinois Bd. of Educ.
, 810 F.2d 707 (7th Cir. 1987)).Doe Defendants are now defendants in this action, and they are defending the ConsentDecree against the well-pled and well-known claims of Plaintiffs.
PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING TO BRING THIS ACTION.
The Court should deny theirmotion to dismiss.Doe Defendants present a conclusory and exceedingly brief argument that
Plaintiffslack standing to bring this action, but only discuss the Pastor Plaintiffs’ claims and
of thedozens of claims brought by the Educator Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 64 at 7-8). In their one and one-half page “argument” on standing, Doe Defendants do not even mention the Student Plaintiffs, theFormer Student Plaintiffs, the Parent Plaintiffs or any of the other dozens of claims brought bythe Educator Plaintiffs. (
.). Thus, Doe Defendants do not explain how a parent, such as Mrs.Beckham, who is being denied the right to volunteer at her child’s school on account of herunwillingness to waive core constitutional rights, does not have standing to seek redress against
Plaintiffs in no way concede that Doe Defendant
in this action, and Plaintiffs do not waive theirargument that Doe Defendants have no standing to defend the Consent Decree because they havegraduated. (Dkt. 35 at 3-12).
Case 3:10-cv-00142-MCR -MD Document 82 Filed 10/25/10 Page 3 of 15