§17.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§17.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

Numerous Washington courts have interpreted and applied the real party in interest rules in various contexts. Some of the most significant published opinions are discussed below.

(1)Purpose of CR 17

The purposes of CR 17(a) is "to protect a defendant from a subsequent action by the party actually entitled to recover and to expedite litigation by not permitting technical or narrow constructions to interfere with the merits of legitimate controversies." Plese-Graham, LLC v. Loshbaugh, 164 Wn.App. 530, 538, 269 P.3d 1038 (2011); Beal v. City of Seattle,134 Wn.2d 769, 782-83, 954 P.2d 237 (1998).

The real party in interest rule assumes that an action will have res judicata effect and thus protect the parties from repetitive suits on the same cause of action. Beal, 134 Wn.2d at 777 (quoting advisory committee note to amended federal rule); Kommavongsa v. Haskell, 149 Wn.2d 288, 315, 67 P.3d 1068 (2003).

(2)Definition of real party in interest

Generally, the real party in interest is "the person who, if successful, will be entitled to the fruits of the action." Nw. Indep. Forest Mfrs. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.,78 Wn.App. 707, 716, 899 P.2d 6 (1995). The real party in interest must have a "present, substantial interest" and must show that he or she will be benefited by the relief granted. Triplett v.Dairylandlns. Co.,12 Wn.App. 912, 915, 532P.2d1177 (1975). Mere expectancy or future contingent interest is insufficient to qualify a person as a real party in interest. Kim v. Moffett, 156 Wn.App. 689, 699, 234P.3d279 (2010).

(3)Objections and waiver of the same

Liberal opportunity for substitution of or ratification by the real party in interest is allowed. Kommavongsa, 140 at 317; Beal, 134 Wn.2d at 783.

For an objection to be sufficient, a defendant must take a positive step to bring the matter before the court so that the mistake can be corrected. Rinke v. Johns-Manville Corp.,47 Wn.App. 222, 228 n.2, 734P.2d533, review denied, 108 Wn.2d 1026 (1987).

A motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a proper vehicle for bringing an objection before the court for correction. Dennis v. Heggen,35 Wn.App. 432, 434, 667 P.2d 131, review denied, 100 Wn.2d 1032 (1983).

Mere delay in adding a real party in interest is insufficient to warrant dismissal of an action. Rinke, 47 Wn.App. at 227. Dismissal after objection is only proper when a reasonable time has been allowed for ratification, substitution, or joinder, and none can be effected. Id. at 227-28.

(4)Substitution, joinder, ratification, and the relation-back doctrine

If properly substituted, joined, or ratified, the addition of the real party in interest may invoke the relation-back doctrine as long as the defendant is not prejudiced and the real party in interest was substituted, joined, or ratified within a reasonable time after objection by the adversary. Kommavongsa, 140Wn.2dat317;BeaZ, 134Wn.2d769.

The courts will permit relation back even in the absence of an understandable mistake when the only change is the capacity in which plaintiff is named, and defendant is not prejudiced. Beat,134 Wn.2d 769; Sprague v. Sysco Corp., 97 Wn.App. 169, 982 P.2d 1202 (1999), review denied, 140 Wn.2d 1004 (2000).

The relation-back provision of CR 17(a) is not available when the complaint is amended to add a proper defendant rather than a proper plaintiff. Geschwind v. Flanagan,65 Wn.App. 207, 210, 828 P.2d 603 (1992), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds,121 Wn.2d 833, 854 P.2d 1061 (1993).

The addition of a real party in interest, rather than dismissal, is the preferred course when refusal to allow the addition "would cause retrial of the same case, delay in final settlement of the issues, and waste judicial resources." Betchard-Clayton, Inc. v. King,41 Wn.App. 887, 896, 707P.2d1361, review denied, 104 Wn.2d 1027 (1985).

(5)Specific categories of real parties in interest

The cases below discuss specific applications of the real party in interest doctrine, in both Washington and federal courts.

(a)Contracting parties

A promisee to a contract is entitled to enforce it and sue in his or her own name for alleged breach. Kim, 156 Wn.App. at 700.

(b)Third-party beneficiaries

The intended beneficiaries of third-party beneficiary contracts are real parties in interest. Roberts v....