1. The real-party-in-interest rule is justified by the need to foreclose duplicative lawsuits, to assert all defenses in one action, and to avoid prejudice, in particular by ensuring that the resulting judgment will have res judicata effect. See The Ezra Charitable Trust v. Rent–Way, Inc., 136 F.Supp.2d 435, 443 (W.D. Pa. 2001). How does Rule 17 achieve these goals? Is the rule redundant of the governing applicable substantive law? Courts and commentators have called for its elimination. See Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 485 F.2d 78, 83 (4th Cir. 1973) (“‘Rule 17

(a) is a barnacle on the federal practice ship. It ought to be scraped away.’ ”) (quoting Kennedy,Federal Rule 17(a): Will the Real Party in Interest Please Stand?, 51 Minn. L. Rev. 675, 724 (1967)); Entman,More Reasons for Abolishing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a): The Problem of the Proper Plaintiff and Insurance Subrogation, 68 N.C. L. Rev. 893 (1990).

682