Also known as: indispensable party · indispensable party joinder
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A party whose joinder is required because the person's absence would prevent complete relief among existing parties or would impair the person's ability to protect an interest or subject an existing party to multiple or inconsistent obligations. When joinder is not feasible the court must weigh equitable factors to decide whether the action may proceed without the party or must be dismissed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
India Inoue sued a contractor in federal court but omitted a joint tortfeasor whose presence would have required dismissal under Rule 19. The court dismissed the action for failure to join the indispensable party. When India filed the identical claim again the second court recognized that Rule 41(b) excepts such dismissals from operating as an adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
Isaac Irving sued a supplier in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. A second plaintiff holding an identical claim sought to join under Rule 20. The defendant argued the second plaintiff was indispensable and would destroy diversity. The court held that the joinder rule did not require treating the additional plaintiff as indispensable and supplemental jurisdiction attached.
Ivan Ivanov sued a federal agency alleging injury from a regulatory change. The agency moved to dismiss arguing that downstream actors whose conduct caused the injury were indispensable parties. The court rejected the motion because the absent actors were not required for just adjudication and complete relief remained possible against the agency alone.
Ivy Ibarra challenged a state legislative map in federal court. The state argued that individual legislators whose districts would be altered were indispensable parties. The court proceeded without them because the existing defendants could fully litigate the constitutional claim and no prejudice arose from their absence.
Ines Ibarra brought a class action against a corporation in Kansas federal court. The defendant objected that absent class members were indispensable because a judgment would not bind them elsewhere. The court certified the class after confirming that the forum possessed jurisdiction sufficient to support res judicata effect against all members.
Integrity Partners faced multiple claims to insurance proceeds and filed an interpleader action naming only some claimants. A remaining claimant argued that the omitted parties were indispensable. The court allowed the action to proceed because the interpleader statute and Rule 19 factors permitted resolution among the joined parties without substantial prejudice.
A necessary party must be joined if feasible because its absence threatens complete relief or impairs an interest. An indispensable party is the label applied only after the court decides that the action cannot proceed in equity and good conscience without that party when joinder is impossible.
No. The court first determines whether the absent person is required under Rule 19(a). If joinder is impossible the court then balances the four factors in Rule 19(b) to decide whether the action may continue or must be dismissed.
…of government in the United States and all Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence . . . ." [^maj-16]: We need not reach the question of indispensable parties because the District Court has not yet decided it. [^maj-17]: The accuracy of calling even such dismissals "jurisdictional" was questioned in Bell v. Hood . See 327 U. S., at…
…applies only to diversity cases, withholds supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of plaintiffs proposed to be joined as indispensable parties
…support for the dissent's novel contention, ibid. , that Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing joinder of indispensable parties
…who we found to have standing to challenge the forum's personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state trust company which was an indispensable party
…Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the controversy; (2) the Texas and New Orleans Railroad, which had not been joined, was an indispensable party defendant; and (3) the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be given. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss holding that Congress had given the Adjustment…
No. A joint tortfeasor subject to joint and several liability is not a person required for just adjudication under compulsory joinder rules and therefore is not indispensable.
Rule 41(b) provides that such a dismissal does not operate as an adjudication on the merits. Jurisdictions may still decide independently whether the dismissal carries preclusive effect in later actions.
The defense is raised by motion under Rule 12 before answering. It is distinct from a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge and is the proper vehicle when the defendant contends an absent person is indispensable.