Required and Necessary Parties

Required and Necessary Parties

Civil litigation sometimes involves people or entities whose interests are so closely connected to the dispute that they should participate in the lawsuit even though the plaintiff did not initially name them as parties. A court may therefore have to determine whether another person must be joined before the case can properly proceed.

Federal civil procedure addresses this problem primarily through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, which governs required joinder of parties. Rule 19 asks whether a person should be joined because the person claims an interest relating to the action, because resolving the dispute without that person could impair the person’s ability to protect that interest, because existing parties could be exposed to multiple or inconsistent obligations, or because the person’s absence would prevent the court from providing complete relief among existing parties.

The terminology can be confusing because older cases often use the terms “necessary party” and “indispensable party,” while modern Rule 19 uses the term “required party.” Under the current rule, the analysis proceeds in stages: first determine whether a person is required; then determine whether the person can feasibly be joined; and, if joinder is not possible, determine whether the action should proceed without that person or instead be dismissed.

This framework reflects a fundamental principle of civil procedure: a court should not determine rights in a dispute while unnecessarily leaving a person whose legally protected interests are directly implicated outside the litigation.

What Is a Required Party?

A required party is a person who falls within one of the categories specified by Rule 19(a).

The rule generally requires joinder when:

1. complete relief cannot be accorded among the existing parties without the absent person;
2. the absent person claims an interest relating to the action and resolving the action without that person may impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest; or
3. the absent person’s absence could leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations.

If one of these circumstances exists, the person is considered required under Rule 19(a).

The complete federal rule is available through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 at Cornell Law School.

The rule does not mean that every person affected by a lawsuit must become a party.

The requirement is narrower.

The person’s relationship to the litigation must be sufficiently significant to justify compulsory joinder.

---

“Necessary Party” and “Required Party”

The terminology deserves special attention.

Older federal cases frequently divided parties into:

• necessary parties;
• indispensable parties; and
• permissive parties.

The current Rule 19 uses different terminology.

It first asks whether the absent person is required.

If the person is required but cannot be joined, the court then determines whether the action should proceed or whether the person is so important that the action cannot fairly continue without them.

This distinction is important because “necessary” and “indispensable” are often used differently depending on the case, court, and historical period.

For modern federal practice, the safest approach is to begin with the language of Rule 19:

Is the person required under Rule 19(a)?

If yes:

Can the person be joined?

If not:

Should the action proceed without that person or be dismissed?

---

Why Does Required Joinder Exist?

Required joinder serves several related purposes.

Protecting Absent Parties

A person may have a legally protected interest in property, a contract, or another subject of litigation.

A court decision could affect that interest even though the person was not originally named.

Rule 19 can require the person to be brought into the action so that the person has an opportunity to participate.

Providing Complete Relief

The court should, when possible, resolve the dispute among the existing parties without leaving important aspects of the controversy unresolved.

Avoiding Inconsistent Obligations

If separate lawsuits could result in conflicting obligations for an existing party, joinder may be appropriate.

Promoting Finality

Resolving related interests in one proceeding can reduce repetitive litigation.

Required joinder therefore protects both absent parties and existing parties.

---

Rule 19(a): The First Stage of the Analysis

Rule 19(a) establishes the initial inquiry.

The court asks whether the absent person is required.

There are three principal grounds.

First Ground: Complete Relief

The person must be joined if, in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties.

Second Ground: Protection of the Absent Person’s Interest

The person must be joined if the person claims an interest relating to the action and disposing of the action without the person may:

• impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest; or
• leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.

These requirements should be analyzed separately.

---

Complete Relief Among Existing Parties

The first Rule 19(a) inquiry asks whether the court can provide complete relief among the existing parties without the absent person.

This point is frequently misunderstood.

The rule does not necessarily require the court to resolve every possible dispute involving every person connected to the controversy.

The question is whether the existing parties can receive complete relief from the court without the absent person.

Example

Suppose a plaintiff sues a tenant for unpaid rent.

The landlord and tenant are already parties.

If the landlord can obtain complete relief against the tenant without joining the tenant’s roommate, the roommate is not necessarily a required party simply because the roommate lived at the property.

The roommate’s presence may be factually relevant without making the roommate legally required under Rule 19.

---

The Existing-Parties Limitation

The phrase “among existing parties” is important.

Rule 19 is not a general rule requiring every person with any factual connection to a dispute to be joined.

A court may be able to provide complete relief between the plaintiff and defendant even though another person could potentially assert a related claim in a separate proceeding.

This prevents required-joinder doctrine from becoming unlimited.

The focus is on whether the absent person’s participation is necessary to resolve the legal dispute currently before the court.

---

Protecting the Absent Person’s Interest

The second major category concerns the absent person’s own legal interests.

Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i) applies when the absent person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action.

The mere possibility that someone might have an interest is not always enough.

The rule focuses on a person who claims an interest relating to the action.

The court then asks whether proceeding without that person may impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest.

This reflects a basic fairness principle.

A court should be cautious about determining rights affecting an absent person when the absent person has no opportunity to participate.

---

Example: Disputed Property

Suppose three people claim ownership interests in a parcel of land.

Person A sues Person B seeking a declaration that A owns the entire property.

Person C also claims an ownership interest.

Person C may be a required party because a judgment concerning ownership could affect C’s claimed interest.

Without C, the court might determine the ownership dispute without giving C an opportunity to protect the claimed property interest.

Rule 19 exists in part to prevent this type of problem.

---

The Interest Must Be Legally Protected

Not every practical or economic interest qualifies.

A person may be interested in the outcome of litigation without having the type of legally protected interest contemplated by Rule 19.

For example, a company’s employee may care deeply about the outcome of a lawsuit involving the company but not necessarily possess an independent legal interest in the subject matter.

The court therefore examines the nature of the absent person’s asserted interest.

The inquiry is contextual and depends on the substantive law governing the dispute.

---

Impairment or Impediment

The phrase “impair or impede” does not mean that the absent person’s interests must necessarily be destroyed.

The question is whether resolving the case without that person could practically or legally impair the person’s ability to protect the claimed interest.

Potential impairment can arise when:

• the absent person claims ownership of disputed property;
• the litigation concerns contractual rights shared by multiple parties;
• the judgment could affect the absent person’s legal rights;
• the absent person’s interests are represented inadequately by existing parties; or
• the litigation could have practical consequences for the absent person’s ability to protect its position.

The court evaluates the actual relationship between the absent person and the dispute.

---

Risk of Multiple or Inconsistent Obligations

Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) addresses a different problem.

An absent person may be required when leaving that person out would expose an existing party to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.

This provision is not simply concerned with inconsistent factual findings.

It is concerned with inconsistent obligations.

That distinction matters.

---

Multiple Obligations vs. Inconsistent Obligations

Suppose a defendant faces two different lawsuits involving the same transaction.

The possibility that two courts might reach different factual conclusions does not automatically establish the Rule 19 standard.

The rule is concerned with situations in which the defendant may be legally required to comply with incompatible obligations.

For example, one court might order a party to transfer property to Person A, while another proceeding could require the same party to transfer that same property to Person B.

The risk of incompatible obligations is fundamentally different from the possibility that different courts might simply disagree about facts.

---

“Inconsistent Obligations” Does Not Mean “Inconsistent Results”

This distinction is one of the most important technical points in Rule 19 analysis.

A party may face:

• inconsistent factual findings;
• inconsistent legal conclusions;
• inconsistent judgments; or
• inconsistent obligations.

Not all of these necessarily satisfy Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii).

The rule specifically addresses the risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.

Courts therefore analyze the nature of the potential judgments carefully.

---

Who Decides Whether a Party Is Required?

The court ultimately determines whether Rule 19 requires joinder.

The issue can arise:

• on a party’s motion;
• in response to a Rule 12(b)(7) motion;
• through the court’s own examination of the pleadings; or
• during another stage of the litigation.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) permits a defendant to move to dismiss for failure to join a party under Rule 19.

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 at Cornell Law School.

Thus, required-party doctrine can become a direct issue at the pleading stage.

---

Rule 12(b)(7) and Required Parties

A Rule 12(b)(7) motion argues that the plaintiff has failed to join a party required under Rule 19.

The court generally conducts a structured analysis.

The basic questions are:

1. Is the absent person required under Rule 19(a)?
2. Can the person be joined?
3. If the person cannot be joined, should the action proceed or be dismissed?

A Rule 12(b)(7) motion therefore differs from a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Rule 12(b)(6)

The complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim.

Rule 12(b)(7)

The plaintiff failed to join a party required under Rule 19.

The two motions address fundamentally different problems.

---

Can the Required Party Be Joined?

Finding that someone is required does not automatically mean the lawsuit must be dismissed.

The next question is whether the person can be joined.

Joinder may be feasible when:

• the person is subject to personal jurisdiction;
• service can be accomplished;
• joining the person does not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction; and
• the procedural requirements for joinder are otherwise satisfied.

This is why Rule 19(a) and Rule 19(b) must be read together.

---

Personal Jurisdiction and Required Joinder

A court generally cannot compel a person to participate in litigation if the court lacks personal jurisdiction over that person.

Suppose an absent defendant lives in another state and has no sufficient contacts with the forum state.

If joining that person would violate personal-jurisdiction principles, joinder may not be feasible.

The court must then proceed to the Rule 19(b) analysis.

Required-party doctrine therefore interacts directly with personal jurisdiction.

---

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Required Joinder

Joinder can also affect subject-matter jurisdiction.

This is particularly important in diversity cases.

Suppose:

• Plaintiff is a citizen of State A;
• Defendant is a citizen of State B;
• the case is based on diversity jurisdiction.

If a required party is a citizen of State A, adding that person may destroy complete diversity.

The court must then determine whether:

• joinder is possible;
• another jurisdictional basis exists;
• supplemental jurisdiction applies; or
• the case must be dismissed.

The procedural importance of a required party therefore extends beyond Rule 19 itself.

---

Diversity Jurisdiction and Rule 19

Diversity cases often make required-party analysis particularly significant.

A party may be required under Rule 19 but joining that party may eliminate diversity jurisdiction.

This creates a difficult procedural problem.

The court cannot simply say:

“The person is required, so add them.”

The court must also ask:

“Can the person be joined without depriving the federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction?”

If the answer is no, Rule 19(b) becomes important.

---

Rule 19(b): When Joinder Is Not Feasible

Suppose the court determines:

1. the absent person is required under Rule 19(a); but
2. the person cannot feasibly be joined.

The court must then determine whether the action should proceed without that person or be dismissed.

This is the second stage of the Rule 19 framework.

Rule 19(b) identifies several factors for the court to consider.

The complete provision appears in Rule 19(b) at Cornell Law School.

---

The Rule 19(b) Factors

When joinder is not feasible, the court considers whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.

The rule identifies four principal considerations.

1. Prejudice

What extent would a judgment rendered in the person’s absence prejudice:

• the absent person; or
• existing parties?

2. Ability to Lessen or Avoid Prejudice

Can the court shape the judgment or take other measures to lessen or avoid the prejudice?

3. Adequacy of the Judgment

Would a judgment rendered in the person’s absence be adequate?

4. Adequacy of Another Remedy

Would the plaintiff have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder?

The court balances these considerations rather than applying a rigid formula.

---

The Indispensable Party

If an absent required party cannot be joined and the court concludes that the action cannot fairly proceed without that person, the person is traditionally described as indispensable.

Modern Rule 19 does not make “indispensable party” the starting point.

Instead, the concept emerges from the Rule 19(b) analysis.

The court effectively asks:

Is this person so important to the litigation that the case should not proceed in that person’s absence?

If yes, dismissal may be required.

This is the modern functional meaning of an indispensable party.

---

Required Does Not Mean Indispensable

This distinction is essential.

A person may be required under Rule 19(a) but not indispensable under Rule 19(b).

For example:

1. the person has an important interest;
2. Rule 19(a) therefore requires joinder;
3. joinder is impossible because of jurisdictional limitations;
4. the court evaluates Rule 19(b);
5. the court concludes that the case can fairly proceed without the absent person.

The person is required but not indispensable.

Conversely, the Rule 19(b) factors may lead the court to conclude that dismissal is necessary.

---

Rule 19 and Rule 21

Rule 21 provides another important procedural tool.

When a party has been improperly joined, the court may drop or add a party.

This differs from Rule 19’s required-joinder analysis.

Rule 19 asks whether a person must be joined.

Rule 21 can help the court correct party-joinder problems.

The two rules can therefore interact in complex litigation.

---

Rule 19 and Rule 20

Rule 20 governs permissive joinder of parties.

Rule 20 generally allows parties to be joined when the claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and involve a common question of law or fact.

This is different from Rule 19.

Rule 19

Addresses parties whose presence is required under specified circumstances.

Rule 20

Provides a mechanism for joining parties who may properly participate but are not necessarily required.

The distinction can be summarized as:

Rule 19 = required joinder

Rule 20 = permissive joinder

The full text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 is available from Cornell Law School.

---

Rule 19 and Rule 24

Intervention under Rule 24 is another related concept.

A person who is not originally a party may seek to intervene because of an interest in the litigation.

Intervention can be:

• intervention of right; or
• permissive intervention.

Rule 19 and Rule 24 address different procedural situations.

Rule 19 asks whether the court itself must require the person’s participation.

Rule 24 allows a nonparty to seek participation under specified intervention standards.

These doctrines can overlap in the interests they protect, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.

---

Rule 19 and Third-Party Practice

Rule 14 permits certain defendants to bring third-party claims against persons who may be liable to them for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim.

This can sometimes provide a mechanism for bringing an additional person into the litigation.

But Rule 14 does not replace Rule 19.

The court must still determine whether the person is required under Rule 19 and whether the requirements of third-party practice are satisfied.

Each joinder mechanism has its own purpose.

---

Required Parties and Contracts

Contract litigation frequently raises Rule 19 questions.

Suppose a contract involves three parties:

• A;
• B; and
• C.

A sues B seeking a declaration concerning rights under the contract.

If C has a direct legal interest in the contract that could be affected by the judgment, C may potentially be a required party.

The analysis depends on:

• the contractual rights;
• the relief requested;
• the relationship among the parties;
• the effect of the proposed judgment; and
• the possibility of prejudice.

A court should not assume that every contracting party is automatically required.

The nature of the requested relief matters.

---

Required Parties and Property

Property disputes are another classic setting.

Suppose A claims ownership of property and sues B for exclusive possession.

C claims a separate ownership interest.

If the judgment would directly affect C’s asserted property interest, C may be required.

This is particularly important where the court is being asked to determine ownership or transfer rights.

The greater the connection between the absent person’s legal interest and the property at issue, the more significant Rule 19 becomes.

---

Required Parties and Government Interests

Government entities can also raise required-party issues.

Suppose private parties challenge an action that affects government-controlled property or regulatory rights.

Whether a government entity must be joined depends on the legal interests involved and the nature of the relief requested.

Sovereign immunity may sometimes make joinder impossible.

When a required party cannot be joined because of immunity, the Rule 19(b) analysis can become particularly important.

The court must weigh the consequences of proceeding without the sovereign against the plaintiff’s ability to obtain relief.

---

Sovereign Immunity and Rule 19

Sovereign immunity can create one of the most difficult Rule 19 problems.

Suppose a person claims that a government entity has violated legal rights concerning property.

If the government entity is a required party but cannot be sued because of sovereign immunity, the court cannot simply disregard the problem.

It must determine whether the litigation can proceed without the government entity.

The Rule 19(b) factors become central.

The court may consider:

• prejudice to the sovereign;
• prejudice to existing parties;
• whether relief can be structured differently;
• whether the judgment would be adequate; and
• whether the plaintiff has another adequate remedy.

---

Rule 19 and Declaratory Judgments

Declaratory-judgment actions frequently raise party-joinder questions because the plaintiff may ask the court to declare the legal rights of multiple people.

If an absent person’s rights would be directly affected by the declaration, Rule 19 may become important.

For example, if A asks a federal court to declare that A alone owns a contractual right shared with B and C, the court may need to determine whether B and C are required parties.

A declaratory judgment should not ordinarily determine a person’s legal rights without considering whether that person must participate.

---

Nominal vs. Real Parties in Interest

Required-party analysis should also be distinguished from the real-party-in-interest requirement.

Rule 17 generally requires an action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

Rule 19, by contrast, asks whether another person must be joined because of that person’s relationship to the litigation.

These are different questions.

A real-party-in-interest problem concerns whether the correct claimant is bringing the action.

A Rule 19 problem concerns whether another person must participate.

The doctrines can overlap in a complicated case, but they should not be conflated.

---

Required Parties and Standing

Standing is another distinct concept.

Article III standing generally concerns whether the plaintiff has suffered the type of injury and possesses the required connection to the dispute necessary to invoke federal judicial power.

Rule 19 asks a different question:

Does another person need to participate in this lawsuit?

A plaintiff may have standing while the lawsuit nevertheless suffers from a Rule 19 joinder problem.

Conversely, joining additional parties does not automatically cure a plaintiff’s lack of standing.

Jurisdictional and joinder doctrines must therefore be analyzed separately.

---

Required Parties and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

A court should also distinguish joinder from subject-matter jurisdiction.

Rule 19 determines whether a person should participate.

Subject-matter jurisdiction determines whether the federal court has authority to adjudicate the case.

An absent party can therefore create a jurisdictional problem without being a required party, and a required party can create a jurisdictional problem when joinder changes the jurisdictional basis.

This is particularly important in diversity cases.

---

The Court’s Duty to Consider Rule 19

Required-party problems are not necessarily dependent entirely on a defendant raising them.

Federal courts can consider Rule 19 issues during litigation.

A court may identify an absent required party and require the parties to address the issue.

This reflects the importance of proper party structure to the integrity of the proceeding.

The precise procedural posture and consequences depend on the circumstances.

---

The Burden of Showing Required Joinder

The party arguing that an absent person must be joined generally must identify the factual and legal basis for the assertion.

The court then evaluates the Rule 19 criteria.

A party should not merely say:

“This person is necessary.”

The party should explain:

• what legal interest the absent person has;
• how the action affects that interest;
• why existing parties cannot receive complete relief without the person;
• what prejudice may occur;
• whether multiple or inconsistent obligations are possible;
• whether joinder is feasible; and
• what consequences would follow if the action proceeded without the person.

Specific analysis is essential.

---

The Court Can Shape Relief

Rule 19(b) recognizes that dismissal is not always the only solution.

A court may sometimes structure relief in a way that reduces prejudice to an absent party.

For example, the court may narrow the judgment so that it does not purport to determine rights belonging to the absent person.

The court can therefore consider whether the dispute can be resolved without unnecessarily adjudicating the absent person’s interests.

This is part of the flexible nature of Rule 19(b).

---

Dismissal for Failure to Join a Required Party

If a required party cannot be joined and the Rule 19(b) factors indicate that the action cannot fairly proceed, the court may dismiss the action.

This is a significant consequence.

But dismissal is not automatic merely because a required party is absent.

The court must first conduct the appropriate analysis.

The central question is whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed without the person.

---

What Happens After Dismissal?

A Rule 19 dismissal does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff’s underlying substantive claim is false.

The dismissal may result from a structural problem with the parties.

The plaintiff may potentially be able to:

• bring the action in another forum;
• join the absent party where jurisdiction permits;
• pursue another available remedy; or
• restructure the requested relief.

The consequences depend on why joinder was impossible and why the court determined that the action could not proceed.

---

A Complete Rule 19 Hypothetical

Consider a dispute over a piece of land.

A claims that A owns the entire property.

A sues B in federal court, seeking a declaration of exclusive ownership.

C has already recorded a deed asserting an ownership interest in the same property.

Step One: Is C Required?

C claims an interest relating to the subject of the action.

A judgment declaring A the sole owner could impair C’s ability to protect that claimed interest.

C is therefore potentially a required party under Rule 19(a).

Step Two: Can C Be Joined?

Suppose C is subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum and joining C would not destroy federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Joinder may be feasible.

The court can therefore require C to be joined.

Alternative Step Two

Suppose instead that C is immune from suit or cannot be joined without destroying the court’s jurisdiction.

The court must proceed to Rule 19(b).

Step Three: Should the Case Continue?

The court considers:

• the potential prejudice to C;
• prejudice to A or B;
• whether the judgment can be structured to reduce prejudice;
• whether a judgment without C would be adequate; and
• whether A has an adequate alternative remedy.

The court then determines whether the case should proceed or be dismissed.

This three-stage structure is the heart of modern Rule 19 analysis.

---

A Practical Rule 19 Checklist

When analyzing a potential required party, use the following sequence.

1. Identify the absent person

Who is not currently a party?

2. Identify the person’s asserted interest

What legal interest does the person claim in the subject matter?

3. Ask whether complete relief is possible

Can the court provide complete relief among the existing parties without the absent person?

4. Ask whether the absent person’s interest may be impaired

Could the litigation impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the claimed interest?

5. Ask whether existing parties face inconsistent obligations

Could the person’s absence create a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations for an existing party?

6. Determine whether the person is required

If any applicable Rule 19(a) ground is satisfied, the person is required.

7. Determine whether joinder is feasible

Consider:

• personal jurisdiction;
• service;
• subject-matter jurisdiction;
• venue; and
• other applicable procedural requirements.

8. Apply Rule 19(b) if necessary

If joinder is impossible, analyze:

• prejudice;
• ability to lessen prejudice;
• adequacy of the judgment; and
• adequacy of an alternative remedy.

9. Decide whether the case proceeds or is dismissed

The court ultimately determines whether the litigation can fairly continue without the absent required party.

---

Common Mistakes

Calling Every Relevant Person “Necessary”

A person does not become a required party merely because that person has some factual connection to the dispute.

Assuming Every Joint Contracting Party Must Be Joined

The nature of the requested relief and the person’s legal interest matter.

Confusing Inconsistent Results With Inconsistent Obligations

Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) focuses on the substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.

Assuming Required Means Indispensable

A required party may be joined. Even if joinder is impossible, the case may sometimes proceed without that person.

Ignoring Personal Jurisdiction

A person cannot simply be added if the court lacks authority to exercise personal jurisdiction where required.

Ignoring Diversity Jurisdiction

Adding a required party may destroy complete diversity.

Treating Rule 19 as a Merits Rule

Required-party doctrine concerns the structure and fairness of litigation. It does not determine whether the plaintiff ultimately wins.

Confusing Rule 19 With Rule 20

Rule 19 concerns required joinder. Rule 20 concerns permissive joinder.

Confusing Rule 19 With Rule 14

Rule 14 governs third-party practice, not required-party analysis generally.

Assuming Dismissal Is Automatic

Even if a person is required but cannot be joined, Rule 19(b) requires a further analysis before dismissal.

---

The Broader Purpose of Required Joinder

Required-party doctrine reflects a tension inherent in civil litigation.

On one side is the desire to resolve disputes efficiently.

On the other is the principle that courts should not unfairly determine the rights of people who are absent from the litigation.

Rule 19 attempts to balance these competing concerns.

The rule does not require every conceivable interested person to participate in every lawsuit.

Instead, it identifies situations in which the person’s participation is sufficiently important to justify compulsory joinder.

When joinder is impossible, Rule 19(b) gives the court a structured way to decide whether the litigation can fairly proceed.

This approach protects the integrity of judicial judgments while avoiding unnecessary dismissal whenever possible.

---

Key Takeaways

• Required-party doctrine determines when a person must be joined to a federal civil action.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 is the principal rule governing required joinder.
• Modern Rule 19 uses the term “required party”, although older cases often use “necessary” and “indispensable.”
• A person may be required when complete relief cannot be accorded among existing parties without that person.
• A person may also be required when the person claims an interest relating to the action and resolving the case without the person may impair or impede protection of that interest.
• A person may also be required when the person’s absence creates a substantial risk that an existing party will incur multiple or inconsistent obligations.
• A required party is not automatically an indispensable party.
• If a required party can feasibly be joined, the court generally proceeds by requiring joinder.
• Feasibility can depend on personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, service, and other procedural requirements.
• If joinder is not feasible, the court applies Rule 19(b).
• Rule 19(b) considers prejudice, the possibility of reducing prejudice, the adequacy of the judgment, and whether the plaintiff has an adequate alternative remedy.
• A court may dismiss the action if it determines that the case cannot fairly proceed without the absent party.
• Rule 12(b)(7) provides a motion to dismiss for failure to join a party under Rule 19.
• Rule 19 differs from Rule 20, which governs permissive joinder.
• Rule 19 also differs from Rule 14 third-party practice and Rule 24 intervention.
• Required-party analysis is distinct from standing, subject-matter jurisdiction, and real-party-in-interest requirements, although these doctrines can interact.
• Required joinder is particularly important in cases involving property, contracts, multiple parties, declaratory judgments, and diversity jurisdiction.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a required party?

A required party is a person who falls within Rule 19(a)’s categories and therefore should be joined to the litigation when feasible.

What is a necessary party?

“Necessary party” is traditional terminology often used in older cases for a party whose participation was considered important to the litigation. Modern Rule 19 generally uses the term required party.

Is a required party the same as an indispensable party?

No. A person may be required under Rule 19(a) but, if joinder is impossible, the court may still conclude under Rule 19(b) that the case can proceed without that person.

What is an indispensable party?

Traditionally, an indispensable party is a person whose absence is so consequential that the action should not proceed. Under modern Rule 19, this conclusion emerges from the Rule 19(b) analysis.

Can a court require a person to be joined?

Yes, when Rule 19 establishes that the person is required and joinder is feasible.

What if the required party cannot be joined?

The court applies Rule 19(b) and determines whether the action should proceed without the person or be dismissed.

Can a required party destroy diversity jurisdiction?

Yes. If joining a required party destroys the complete diversity necessary for diversity jurisdiction and no other jurisdictional basis applies, the court must address the resulting jurisdictional problem.

What is Rule 12(b)(7)?

Rule 12(b)(7) permits a party to seek dismissal for failure to join a party under Rule 19.

Does every person affected by a lawsuit have to be joined?

No. Rule 19 does not require every person who might be affected economically or practically by litigation to become a party.

What is the difference between Rule 19 and Rule 20?

Rule 19 concerns required joinder. Rule 20 generally permits permissive joinder when specified transaction-or-occurrence and common-question requirements are satisfied.

What is the difference between Rule 19 and Rule 24?

Rule 19 addresses persons who may be required to participate. Rule 24 governs intervention by persons seeking to become parties under intervention-of-right or permissive-intervention standards.

Can an absent party’s legal interest prevent a case from proceeding?

Potentially. If the person is required, cannot feasibly be joined, and the Rule 19(b) factors indicate that the action cannot fairly proceed without that person, dismissal may be appropriate.

Conclusion

Required and necessary parties occupy an important place in civil procedure because litigation does not occur in isolation. A court’s judgment may affect the legal interests of people who were not named in the original complaint, and the Federal Rules provide a structured method for deciding when those people must participate.

The modern Rule 19 analysis is best understood as a sequence of questions.

First: Is the absent person a required party under Rule 19(a)?

Second: If so, can that person feasibly be joined?

Third: If joinder is impossible, can the case fairly proceed without that person under Rule 19(b)?

This framework replaces the simplistic assumption that every “necessary” person must automatically be added or that every absent required party automatically requires dismissal.

The doctrine instead seeks to balance several competing values: complete relief, protection of absent parties, prevention of inconsistent obligations, judicial efficiency, jurisdictional limits, and fairness.

The distinction between a required party and an indispensable party is particularly important. A person can be required under Rule 19(a) without being indispensable under Rule 19(b). Only after considering whether joinder is feasible and, if not, whether the litigation can proceed in equity and good conscience does the court reach the potentially case-ending consequence of dismissal.

Ultimately, Rule 19 reflects a basic principle of procedural justice: a court should resolve disputes as completely as possible while taking seriously the rights of people whose legally protected interests are directly connected to the controversy.

---