In Pro Per
Rule 19 - Who is Included in Lawsuits

Rule 19 states that a party must be joined in the lawsuit if it would be uneconomical or unfair for it not to be joined.

When you want to know whether a party should be joined, you look at what would happen to that party, as well as the parties already in the suit, if the case were to proceed without the party you want to join.

Would the absence of the party you want to join cause incomplete relief for any of the parties already in the case?

Would the absence of the party you want to join cause an impairment of an interest to that party or any of the parties already in the case?

Would the absence of the party you want to join cause the court to ruling to lead to inconsistent obligations for any of the parties already in the suit?

If so, you need to join, but wait there my little One L friend, don't join just yet, you have to ask yourself, if joinder is feasible.Feasible means that the party to be joined is subject to the court's jurisdiction. If it ain't subject to the court's jurisdiction, it can't be joined.Okay, you look for jurisdiction and it's there...

Boom! You join and have a nice little case with all the parties you need.But what if it ain't feasible?Then what do you do?You just said it has to be joined but you are not allowed.

Well, now you have to decide if you should let the case proceed anyway or throw it the heck out of your court.How do you decide?You figure out what kind of party it is that you want to join. There's two kinds of parties you need concern yourself with when you're dealing with this Rule 19 thing.

NECESSARY parties and INDISPENSABLE parties.

What's the difference?

It depends on how much the absence of the party affects all the parties involved in the case. It's a matter of degrees.

If it's a necessary party, then it's absence will only mean incomplete relief for a party already in the suit.

If it's a necessary party, then it's absence may only impair a present party's ability to protect its interests.

But, if it's an indispensable party, then it's absence will cause severe prejudice to the parties already in the case.

If it's an indispensable party, then the court will not be able to mitigate the prejudice that occurs as a result of its absence.

If it's an indispensable party, then it's absence will leave a party without adequate remedy by the trial.

If it's an indispensable party, then it's absence will leave no adequate remedy elsewhere for the parties involved.

Okay you figured out that it's only necessary... then you have you trial and let the cards fall where they may.

But if you figure you have an indispensable party, you better not proceed without it. So, you call off the case and let the parties fight it out in some other court where they can all have their say.

That's about it, though there's some other specifics to know as well but that should get you started.