Originally Posted by
SAT Lawyer
If her claims were sincere, her husband should be a named defendant. Instead, he too is a plaintiff (also represented by her attorney) and UA is the sole defendant being haled into court. Speaks volumes about the lawsuit to me.
Speaks volumes? But...
1. She sued in federal court, which she could not have done if she had named her husband as a defendant. That would have defeated diversity jurisdiction.
2. If she and her husband share property (e.g. joint bank and investment accounts), suing him is a waste of money. She would be paying her own recovery, and the lawyer would take a cut.