Also known as: FRCP 19 · Rule 19 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 19
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule that requires joinder of persons who are subject to service of process when their absence would prevent the court from according complete relief among existing parties or when the absent person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action such that disposition without joinder may impair the person's ability to protect that interest or leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.
Francesca Fiore sued Frostline Textiles in federal court alleging nuisance from factory operations and sought an injunction altering production schedules. Frostline moved under Rule 12(b)(7) to dismiss for failure to join the city that held contractual approval rights over those schedules. The court evaluated whether the city's absence prevented complete relief or exposed Frostline to inconsistent obligations.
Farah Fox sued Fidelity Trust for breach of a supply contract in a diversity action. Fidelity moved to join a foreign fabricator under Rule 19. The court examined whether supplemental jurisdiction over the new claims would violate the complete-diversity requirement under section 1367(b).
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Frederick Ferguson failed to join a required co-owner in his contract suit. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute after the court ordered joinder. The court noted that dismissal for failure to join under Rule 19 does not operate as an adjudication on the merits.
Fumiko Fujimoto sued her employer alleging discriminatory termination. A coworker moved to intervene claiming the outcome would impair his own promotion rights. The court applied Rule 19 standards to determine whether the coworker was a required party whose absence would practically impair his interests.
Fatima Flores and other plaintiffs brought a diversity class action against Frontier Capital. Additional class members sought to join as plaintiffs. The court considered whether section 1367(b) barred supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving parties joined under Rule 19.
Fernando Farrell sought discovery from Fusion Power in a commercial dispute. Fusion moved for a protective order limiting disclosure. The court weighed whether absent third parties claiming interests in the documents qualified as required parties under Rule 19.
A person must be joined if feasible when absence prevents complete relief among existing parties or when the person claims an interest that may be impaired or that exposes an existing party to inconsistent obligations.
Supporting sources
Section 1367(b) withholds supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons joined under Rule 19 when doing so would destroy complete diversity.
Supporting sources
The court must weigh the Rule 19(b) factors including prejudice to absent and existing parties, whether prejudice can be lessened, adequacy of the judgment, and availability of an alternative remedy before deciding whether to proceed or dismiss.
Supporting sources
…cases, withholds supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of plaintiffs proposed to be joined as indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, or who seek to intervene pursuant to Rule 24. Nothing in the text of § 1367(b), however, withholds supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of plaintiffs permissively joined under Rule 20…