Schoeps as an individual, rather than a final adjudication that they hold title to the paintings. They do so because it is Schoeps who has challenged their ownership. Consequently, there is neither a risk that “in [the heirs’] absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)(1)(A), nor a risk that resolving the instant controversy in the heirs’ absence will legally or “as a practical matter” impair the heirs’ ability to protect their own interests in the paintings, Fed.R.CivJP. 19(a)(1)(B)©. The Second Circuit repeatedly has explained that where a party seeks simply to adjudicate its rights as against a particular claimant but not finally allocate title, it is not necessary to join other claimants. See MasterCard Int’l, 471 F.3d at 387 (<HOLDING>); Brody v. Village of Port Chester, 345 F.3d
holding that it is not necessary to ascertain whether a plan is tax qualified but only that it is covered by erisa holding that state is necessary party only when action is merely voidable holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that joinder of current or competing titleholders is necessary only when the relief sought is a declaration that the plaintiff is the titleholder