Philippines v. Pimentel
Pimentel is the representative of a large class of people who sued Ferdinand Marcos, the former President of the Philippines, in the federal courts of the United States for human rights violations committed in the Philippines. The district court awarded the class a large settlement, a portion of which was contained in a brokerage account established by Marcos. The Republic of the Philippines was also a defendant in the suit, but it successfully claimed that it had sovereign immunity from lawsuits. After the assets were awarded to the class, the Philippines sought to re-enter the suit, claiming that the assets were acquired by Marcos illegally and actually belonged to the Philippines.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. Under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Philippines are a "necessary" party to the lawsuit because if it were not allowed to join the suit it might not be able to protect its asserted interest in the assets. Since the Philippines is protected from suit due to its sovereign immunity and therefore cannot be joined in the suit, normally the entire case should be dismissed. However, Rule 19 requires dismissal only if a "necessary" party is also "indispensable." A party is indispensable only if "equity and good conscience" require it. After balancing the interests of the Philippines against those of the Pimentel class, the Court determined that the Philippines was not an indispensable party.
Questions Presented
1. Whether a foreign government that is a "necessary" party to a lawsuit under Rule 19(a) and has successfully asserted sovereign immunity is, under Rule 19(b), an "indispensable" party to an action brought in the courts of the United States to settle ownership of assets claimed by that government.
2. Whether the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), having been dismissed from the interpleader action based on their successful assertion of sovereign immunity, had the right to appeal the district court's determination that they were not indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b); and whether the Republic and its PCGG have the right to seek this Court's review of the court of appeals' opinion affirming the district court.
