The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert W. Sweet, United States District Judge
The plaintiff pro se Iqbal A. Pasha ("Pasha") has moved by letter application to add Mercer Investment Consulting Inc. ("MIC"), Mercer Human Resource Consulting, Inc. ("MHRCI") and Mercer Consulting Group, Inc. ("MCGI") as defendants in his age discrimination action. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
According to Pasha, MIC was formed in 2002 to conduct the investment consulting business, formerly conducted by defendant William M. Mercer Investment Consulting, Inc. ("WMMICI"), the firm to which Pasha applied for employment. Its parent, according to Pasha, was William M. Mercer, Inc., now known as MHRCI, whose employees interviewed Pasha. The president of MCGI was the person with whom Pasha "interacted the most."
There is no basis to assume that MIC, formed after the events at issue, is a necessary party. The other putative defendants, MHRC, and MCGI, are at best joint tortfeasors and not necessary parties.
Finally, according to the defendant WMMICI, an amended complaint adding the requested entities as parties would be futile since Pasha's failure to name any entity other than WMMICI as a respondent in his EEOC charge would prove fatal to his proposed claims against the additional entities. See Mann v. Sunshine Biscuit, No. 97 Civ. 8562 (WK), 1998 WL 352534, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 1998); Holmes v. Long Island Railroad, No. 96 Civ. 6196 (NG), 1998 WL 960299, **3-4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 1998). This failure is not countered by a submission by Pasha to the contrary.
The motion to add defendants is denied.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw ...