Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel
Holding
(1) Because Arelma and the Philippine National Bank also seek review of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, this court need not rule on the question whether the Republic of the Philippines and the commission established to recover property wrongfully taken by Ferdinand Marcos while he was president of the republic, having been dismissed from the suit, had the right to seek review of the decision that the suit could proceed in their absence. As a general matter any party may move to dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b). Arelma and PNB have not lost standing to have the judgment vacated in its entirety on procedural grounds simply because they did not appeal, or petition for certiorari on, the underlying merits ruling denying them the interpleaded assets. (2) Rule 19 requires dismissal of the interpleader action.
Judgment
Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Anthony McLeod Kennedy on Jun 12, 2008. Justice Souter joined the opinion as to all but Parts IV-B. Justice Stevens joined Part II of the opinion. Justices Stevens and Souter filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.
- Opinion below (Ninth Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Amicus brief of the United States (in support of the petitioner)
Merits briefs (via ABA)
- Brief for the Republic of the Philippines, Philippine Presidential Commission on Good Government, Philippine National Bank, and Arelma, Inc.
- Brief for Respondent Mariano J. Pimentel and the Class of Human Rights Victims
- Reply Brief for the Republic of the Philippines, Philippine Presidential Commission on Good Government, Philippine National Bank, and Arelma, Inc.
Amicus briefs
Recommended Citation: Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/republic-of-the-philippines-v-pimentel/