What Is Required Joinder in a Federal Civil Case?

When a federal civil lawsuit is filed, the parties named in the case are not always the only people or entities whose involvement may be necessary. Sometimes, another person or entity has such an important connection to the dispute that the case should not move forward without them.

This is where required joinder comes into play.

In federal civil cases, required joinder is primarily governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. The rule addresses situations in which a person should be joined as a party because the court cannot provide complete relief to the existing parties without them, or because their absence could affect their legal interests or create inconsistent obligations for parties already involved in the case.

What Does Required Joinder Mean?

Required joinder means that a person who is not currently part of a lawsuit may need to be added because their presence is important to a fair and complete resolution of the dispute.

The person is sometimes described as a required party. Older cases and legal discussions may use terms such as “necessary party” or “indispensable party,” but the current wording of Rule 19 focuses on whether a person must be joined if feasible and, if joinder is not possible, whether the case can fairly continue without that person.

The basic idea is simple: a federal court should try to resolve a dispute without unnecessarily leaving out someone whose rights or interests are closely connected to the case.

When Must a Person Be Joined?

Rule 19(a) identifies situations in which a person should be joined, assuming the person can properly be brought into the case.

Generally, joinder may be required when one of two circumstances exists.

First, the court cannot provide complete relief to the people who are already parties without the absent person.

For example, imagine that two parties are involved in a dispute over ownership of a particular piece of property, but another person has a legal interest in that same property. A court may need that person before it can completely resolve the dispute.

Second, the absent person may claim an interest relating to the subject of the lawsuit, and deciding the case without that person could either harm that person's ability to protect the interest or expose an existing party to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.

Why Is Required Joinder Important?

Required joinder helps prevent courts from making decisions that leave important parties behind.

Suppose a lawsuit involves a contract and a person who has a significant legal interest in that contract is not included. If the court decides the case without that person, the judgment could affect that person's rights even though they never had an opportunity to participate.

Rule 19 is designed in part to avoid that problem and to reduce the possibility of inconsistent obligations arising from related interests.

It also promotes judicial efficiency. Instead of allowing closely connected disputes to produce conflicting results in separate proceedings, the rule can require the relevant parties to participate in one case when that is legally and practically possible.

What Does “If Feasible” Mean?

Required joinder does not mean that every person connected to a lawsuit can automatically be added.

Rule 19(a) considers whether the person is subject to service of process and whether bringing that person into the lawsuit would deprive the federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction. If those requirements are satisfied, the person generally must be joined when the Rule 19(a) conditions are met.

This is particularly important in federal cases because federal courts have limited jurisdiction.

For example, adding a party can sometimes affect diversity jurisdiction. A party who otherwise should be joined may therefore present a jurisdictional problem if adding them would destroy the basis for federal jurisdiction.

What Happens If the Required Party Cannot Be Joined?

This is where Rule 19(b) becomes important.

Sometimes a person meets the requirements for joinder, but joining that person is not possible. There could be a jurisdictional problem, an inability to obtain proper service, or another legal obstacle.

In that situation, the court does not automatically dismiss the case.

Instead, the court must consider whether the lawsuit can fairly proceed among the existing parties or whether the case should be dismissed because the absent person is so important that the litigation should not continue without them.

The court considers several factors, including potential prejudice to the absent person or existing parties, whether protective measures could reduce that prejudice, whether a judgment without the absent person would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the case were dismissed.

Required Party vs. Indispensable Party

These terms are related but should not be treated as exactly the same.

A person may be a required party under Rule 19(a). If that person cannot be joined, the court then considers under Rule 19(b) whether the case can continue without them.

If the court concludes that the litigation should not proceed without the absent person, the person may effectively be treated as indispensable to the action.

Therefore, finding that someone is a required party does not automatically mean the entire lawsuit must be dismissed.

The court must consider the circumstances and apply the Rule 19(b) factors when joinder is not feasible.

Can a Plaintiff Ask the Court to Add a Required Party?

Yes.

If a plaintiff believes that an absent person must be included, the issue can be raised through the appropriate pleading or motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable local rules.

A defendant may also raise the issue when an allegedly required party has been left out.

The court can determine whether Rule 19 requires the person to be joined and, if so, whether joinder is feasible.

The exact procedure can depend on the circumstances of the case, the stage of litigation, the identity of the absent party, and the applicable federal and local rules.

Is Required Joinder the Same as Permissive Joinder?

No.

This distinction is important.

Required joinder under Rule 19 concerns people whose participation may be necessary for complete relief, protection of their interests, or avoidance of inconsistent obligations.

Permissive joinder under Rule 20 is broader. It allows parties to be joined when the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, or when there is a common question of law or fact, provided the other requirements of Rule 20 are satisfied.

In simple terms, Rule 19 asks whether a person needs to be included, while Rule 20 addresses when people may be included together.

What If the Wrong Party Is Joined?

Federal procedure also addresses misjoinder.

Rule 21 provides a mechanism for adding or dropping parties and for severing claims when appropriate. Misjoinder generally does not require dismissal of the entire lawsuit.

This means that a mistake concerning which parties were included does not necessarily end the case. The court may have other procedural options depending on the circumstances.

A Simple Example of Required Joinder

Consider a dispute involving ownership of a business asset.

Person A sues Person B, claiming that B has exclusive ownership of the asset. However, Person C has a separate legal interest in the same asset.

If the court's decision could directly affect Person C's interest, and resolving the dispute without C could create problems for the parties or leave C unable to protect that interest, Rule 19 may require C to be joined if feasible.

If C cannot be joined, the court must then consider whether the case can fairly continue without C.

The answer will depend on the specific facts rather than simply on the fact that C has some connection to the dispute.

Does Failure to Join a Required Party Automatically Dismiss a Federal Case?

Not necessarily.

This is one of the most important points to understand.

If a required party has been left out, the court may order that person to be joined when joinder is feasible.

If joinder is not feasible, the court must conduct the Rule 19(b) analysis and determine whether the case should continue or be dismissed.

The Supreme Court has recognized that Rule 19(b) involves a case-specific evaluation of factors concerning prejudice, adequacy of the judgment, and available remedies.

Therefore, simply saying “a required party was not joined” does not automatically answer what will happen to the lawsuit.

Why Should Litigants Pay Attention to Rule 19?

Identifying required parties early can prevent significant procedural problems later.

A missing party can affect the court's ability to provide complete relief, the protection of legal interests, and even whether the case can continue.

It can also raise jurisdictional questions, particularly in federal cases based on diversity jurisdiction.

For that reason, parties and attorneys should carefully identify everyone who may have a legal interest in the subject matter before the case progresses too far.

Conclusion

Required joinder is an important part of federal civil procedure. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, a person may need to be joined when the court cannot provide complete relief among the existing parties without that person, or when the person's interest could be impaired or could create a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.

If joinder is feasible, the person generally should be added. If joinder is not feasible, the court must decide whether the case can fairly proceed without that person or whether dismissal is appropriate under Rule 19(b).

The practical lesson is simple: not everyone connected to a lawsuit is a required party, but when someone's legal interests are sufficiently important to the dispute, Rule 19 may require that person to be brought into the case.

Sources

• U.S. Courts — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 — Required Joinder of Parties
  Rule 19 — Required Joinder of Parties
• Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School — Mandatory Joinder
  Mandatory Joinder — Cornell Law School
• Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School — Joinder
  Joinder — Cornell Law School
• Supreme Court — Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989) — important Rule 19 case discussing mandatory joinder and the consequences of proceeding without an interested party.
  Martin v. Wilks — Supreme Court / Cornell LII 

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Federal civil procedure can vary depending on the facts of a case, the federal district involved, applicable statutes, and local court rules. Anyone dealing with a specific lawsuit should consider consulting a qualified attorney licensed in the relevant jurisdiction.