Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Second Circuit· 1/6/2009

CP SOLUTIONS PTE, LTD. v. General Electric Co.

Citations

  • 553 F.3d 156
  • 72 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 393
  • 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 15
  • 2009 WL 23575

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that even absent party that was a party to the contract between plaintiff and defendant was not an indispensable party
  • holding that absent party that was a party to the contract between plaintiff and defendant was not an indispensable party
  • holding that a parent company could “champion” its affiliate’s interest where the two were represented by the same counsel and defendants had not alerted the court to any evidence suggesting their interests were adverse
  • concluding that party to disputed contract was not an indispensable party
  • noting that extensive litigation before a Rule 19 motion is filed weighs against dismissal on that motion
  • noting that determining the adequacy of judgment requires a court to consider the “social interest in the efficient administration of justice and the avoidance of multiple litigation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McLaughlin, Parker, Koeltl

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named CP SOLUTIONS PTE, LTD. v. General Electric Co.

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.