166 . In re Canion, 196 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1999). 167 . 363 B.R. 801, 813 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2007). 168 . Rec. Doc. 24 at 4. 169 . See August v. Boyd Gaming Corp., 135 Fed.Appx. 731, 734 (5th Cir. 2005) (determining that joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties); see also La. Code of Civ, P, art, -641 ("Joinder of parties needed for just adjudication,” providing for a similar necessary party analysis). 170 . Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). 171 . Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). 172 . See In re Bass, 171 F.3d 1016, 1022 (5th Cir. 1999). 173 . Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 995 (3d Cir. 1984). 174 . Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1738); see also Matter of Gober, 100 F.3d 1195, 1201 (5th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). 175 . See In re Keaty, 397 F.3d 264, 270 (5th
holding that to grant appellant relief would require an inferior federal court to determine that the state courts judgment was erroneous and would foreclose implementation of that judgment holding that issuance of injunction was necessary to protect federal court judgment when hawaiian state courts refused to grant it preclusive effect holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect holding that a federal court acting under its federal as opposed to diversity jurisdiction may also give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than the state courts would give holding that a state court judgment did not have a preclusive effect where the record failed to demonstrate that the state court conducted a hearing in which the party was required to meets its burden of proof