Signature entered into multiple contracts with Sonitrol pursuant to which Sonitrol would install electronic security equipment and provide security services at various locations. Signature accepted the services and equipment, but failed to pay approximately $491,523.59 for certain equipment and services. Signature moved to dismiss alleging that because Sonitrol performed at multiple locations for multiple Signature dealers pursuant to independent contracts, each claim was factually distinct, did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and represented an independent dispute. The Court denied the motion on the grounds that 1) the various Signature dealers were not indispensable parties as they were not parties to the contract between Sonitrol and Signature; and 2) the interests of judicial economy would be promoted by joining all claims in one action in one forum.
| less than a minute read
Superior Court Denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Parties and Improperly Joined Claims
Latest Insights
