546US1
Unit: $U10
[09-04-08 12:14:58] PAGES PGT: OPIN
Cite as: 546 U. S. 81 (2005)
93
Opinion of the Court
est in this case.8 Indeed, Lincoln accepted responsibility, in the event that the Roches prevailed on the merits of their claims, by admitting that, “[since 1996,] it has managed West field Village Apartments.” App. 137. A named defendant who admits involvement in the controversy and would be liable to pay a resulting judgment is not “nominal” in any sense except that it is named in the complaint. Cf. Knapp v. Railroad Co., 20 Wall. 117, 122 (1874). In any event, we emphasize, the Fourth Circuit had no warrant in this case to inquire whether some other person might have been joined as an additional or substitute defend ant. See ibid. (federal courts should not “inquir[e] outside of the case in order to ascertain whether some other person may not have an equitable interest in the cause of action”); Little, 118 U. S., at 603 (if named party’s interest is real, the fact that other interested parties are not joined “will not affect the jurisdiction of the [federal courts]”); 16 Moore § 107.14[2][c], p. 107–67 (“Ordinarily, a court will not inter fere with the consequences of a plaintiff ’s selection in nam ing parties, unless the plaintiff has impermissibly manu factured diversity or used an unacceptable device to defeat diversity.”). Congress, empowered to prescribe the jurisdiction of the federal courts, sometimes has specified that a named par ty’s own citizenship does not determine its diverse status. Thus, as a procedural matter, executors, administrators, and guardians “may sue in [their] own name[s] without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought.” Rule 17(a). As to diversity jurisdiction, however, § 1332(c)(2) directs that “ the legal representative of [a decedent’s] 8
The Roches’ complaints cast Lincoln as the primary tortfeasor, alleging that Lincoln engaged in “a conscious and predetermined plan” to conceal the hazards of mold from apartment residents. App. 34, 60. Further, the Roches alleged that Lincoln ignored numerous mold-related maintenance requests they “personally” made to Lincoln, id., at 29, 55, inquiries that, if followed up, might have prevented or lessened their injuries.
