Master The Supreme Court held that alleged joint tortfeasors are permissive, not necessary or indispensable, parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. with this comprehensive case brief.
Temple v. Synthes Corp. is a foundational Supreme Court decision on compulsory party joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It squarely addresses whether a plaintiff suing one alleged tortfeasor in federal court can be forced to join other alleged joint tortfeasors—such as a treating physician and hospital—or face dismissal for nonjoinder. The Court's concise per curiam opinion reiterates a bedrock principle: alleged joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties under Rule 19(a) and thus cannot be deemed indispensable under Rule 19(b).
For civil procedure students, Temple clarifies the sequencing and substance of the Rule 19 inquiry, the difference between "necessary" and "indispensable" parties, and the limited role that concerns over duplicative litigation and inconsistent adjudications play in the analysis. It also has practical importance in diversity cases, allowing plaintiffs to structure parallel state and federal actions without being compelled to destroy federal jurisdiction by joining nondiverse defendants.
498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam)
The plaintiff, Temple, underwent surgery in which a metal fixation device—manufactured by Synthes Corp., Ltd.—was implanted. After the device allegedly failed, Temple brought a products liability action against Synthes in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, seeking damages for injuries caused by the defective device. In a separate action in state court, Temple also sued his treating physician and the hospital for medical malpractice arising out of the same procedure and injury. Synthes moved to dismiss the federal action, arguing that the physician and hospital were necessary and indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 because they were alleged joint tortfeasors whose absence risked inconsistent results and incomplete relief. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the suit under Rule 19(b) because joinder of the physician and hospital (who were not diverse from Temple) was not feasible without destroying federal jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. Temple sought and obtained Supreme Court review.
Are a physician and hospital—alleged to be joint tortfeasors with a product manufacturer—necessary or indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 to a federal products liability action against the manufacturer, such that failure to join them warrants dismissal?
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, a court first determines whether an absent party is "required" (necessary) under Rule 19(a), meaning (1) in that party's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (2) the absent party claims an interest relating to the subject matter and disposing of the action in the party's absence may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the party's ability to protect the interest; or (3) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations. Only if a party is necessary under Rule 19(a) and cannot be feasibly joined does the court proceed to Rule 19(b) to decide whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed or be dismissed as the party is indispensable. Joint tortfeasors, however, are ordinarily permissive parties and not necessary under Rule 19(a). See Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968); Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 advisory committee's note ("A tortfeasor with the usual 'joint-and-several' liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability.").
No. The physician and hospital, as alleged joint tortfeasors, were not necessary parties under Rule 19(a), and therefore could not be deemed indispensable under Rule 19(b). The dismissal of Temple's federal action for failure to join them was improper. The Supreme Court reversed.
The Supreme Court emphasized that its precedents and the Rule 19 advisory committee's notes foreclose the argument that joint tortfeasors are necessary parties. A plaintiff may sue one alleged tortfeasor without joining others, and complete relief as between the existing parties (here, Temple and Synthes) can be accorded without the absent physician and hospital. The mere possibility of inconsistent adjudications or duplicative litigation does not, by itself, render absent joint tortfeasors necessary under Rule 19(a). In addition, because the absent parties were not necessary, the district court erred by proceeding to Rule 19(b)'s indispensable-party balancing; that step is reached only if the threshold of Rule 19(a) necessity is met and joinder is not feasible. The Court cited Provident Tradesmens and the advisory committee notes for the proposition that joint and several liability allows a plaintiff to proceed against one tortfeasor alone. Concerns about comparative fault, indemnity, or contribution do not transform joint tortfeasors into necessary parties under Rule 19, as such issues can be addressed through separate actions or impleader without compelling dismissal for nonjoinder. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal and the court of appeals' affirmance conflicted with the settled principle that joint tortfeasors are permissive parties.
Temple is a staple of civil procedure because it cements the principle that alleged joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties under Rule 19(a). It protects plaintiffs' forum selection and litigation strategy, especially in diversity cases where joining additional defendants would defeat jurisdiction. The case clarifies the proper order of analysis—courts must first find necessity under Rule 19(a) before conducting any indispensable-party inquiry under Rule 19(b)—and it cabins the weight given to concerns about parallel litigation or inconsistent outcomes. For practitioners, Temple confirms that defendants generally cannot force dismissal of a federal suit merely by pointing to absent joint tortfeasors who could be sued elsewhere.
No. Temple confirms that joint tortfeasors are permissive, not necessary, parties under Rule 19(a). A plaintiff may proceed against one alleged tortfeasor without joining others who may share liability. Only in exceptional circumstances where an absent party's interest fits Rule 19(a)'s criteria would joinder be required.
It allows a plaintiff to maintain a diversity action against one defendant in federal court while pursuing separate claims against nondiverse joint tortfeasors in state court. Defendants cannot force dismissal by arguing that nondiverse co-tortfeasors are indispensable, because they are not necessary under Rule 19(a).
A party is 'necessary' under Rule 19(a) if complete relief cannot be accorded among existing parties without them, or if their absence may impair their interests or expose existing parties to multiple or inconsistent obligations. A party is 'indispensable' only if, after finding necessity and determining joinder is infeasible, the Rule 19(b) factors show the case cannot, in equity and good conscience, proceed without them. Temple reiterates that you cannot reach the 'indispensable' analysis unless the party is first 'necessary.'
Generally no. Temple makes clear that the mere prospect of parallel suits or inconsistent adjudications is not enough. Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) speaks to inconsistent 'obligations,' not outcomes or fact findings across separate cases. Joint tortfeasors can be sued separately even if this creates the possibility of different results.
Yes, through separate actions or third-party practice (Rule 14) if available. Temple underscores that the availability of such claims does not convert absent co-tortfeasors into necessary parties under Rule 19(a). The federal plaintiff's suit may proceed while contribution/indemnity issues are resolved separately.
Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968), and the Rule 19 advisory committee notes both state that joint tortfeasors are permissive parties. Temple applies these authorities to reverse a dismissal predicated on compulsory joinder of alleged co-tortfeasors.
Temple v. Synthes Corp. delivers a clear directive in compulsory joinder doctrine: alleged joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties under Rule 19(a), and courts should not dismiss actions for failure to join them. By reinforcing the advisory committee's guidance and prior precedent, the Court preserves plaintiffs' ability to structure litigation and maintain federal jurisdiction when appropriate.
For law students, Temple is a crisp illustration of the Rule 19 framework and the careful distinction between necessary and indispensable parties. It teaches the importance of analyzing complete relief, interests of absent parties, and the nature of potential inconsistent 'obligations'—all while recognizing that parallel litigation and differing outcomes do not, without more, compel compulsory joinder.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →