Rule 19: Required Joinder of Parties

Rule 19 addresses situations where someone who is not currently a party to the lawsuit really should be — either because the court cannot give complete relief without them, or because proceeding without them would be unfair. The analysis proceeds in two steps.

First, is the absent person a 'required' party under Rule 19(a)? This is true if complete relief cannot be given without them, or if the absent person has an interest that would be impaired by the litigation, or if proceeding without them would expose existing parties to inconsistent obligations. If the person is required, the court orders joinder.

But sometimes the required person cannot be joined — most commonly because adding them would destroy diversity jurisdiction. That triggers Rule 19(b), which asks whether the case should proceed without the absent party or be dismissed entirely. The court weighs four factors: the extent of potential prejudice, whether the court can shape relief to reduce prejudice, whether a judgment without the absent party would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy elsewhere. If the court determines the absent party is truly 'indispensable,' it dismisses the action under Rule 12(b)(7).