Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A party whose interests are so intertwined with the subject of the litigation that a court cannot render a just adjudication in the party's absence. If the party cannot be joined, the action must be dismissed under Rule 19(b) after weighing prejudice to the absent party or existing parties, the ability to shape relief to lessen prejudice, the adequacy of any judgment, and the availability of an alternative remedy for the plaintiff.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Dismissal After Limitations Ruling
Island Manufacturing sued its former supplier for breach but omitted the supplier's parent company that controlled the contract performance. The court found the parent indispensable because any judgment would bind the parent's rights without its participation. After the statute of limitations ran on the claim against the parent, the court dismissed the entire action. The dismissal did not operate as an adjudication on the merits for claim preclusion purposes in a later forum.
Apportionment Suit Without Key Officials
Voters in a state legislative district sued state election officials alleging malapportionment violated equal protection. The complaint named only the governor and secretary of state. The court determined that county election boards holding primary responsibility for district lines were indispensable because their absence would prevent complete relief and impair their ability to defend their procedures. The suit was dismissed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
Baker v. Carr369 U.S. 186, 211
Interpleader Without All Claimants
An insurer facing multiple claims from injured passengers after a bus accident filed an interpleader action naming only some claimants. The court held that all potential claimants were indispensable because a partial judgment would expose the insurer to inconsistent obligations and leave some claimants without protection. The action could not proceed without joining every claimant.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Tashire386 U.S. 523, 531 (1967)
Diversity Action Missing Co-Plaintiff
A corporation sued a supplier for breach of a supply contract in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Another corporation that had jointly purchased the goods was not joined. The court found the absent purchaser indispensable because its interests in the contract would be impaired by any judgment and its joinder would destroy complete diversity. The case was dismissed.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.545 U.S. 546, 558–59 (2005)
Class Action Lacking Absent Members
A lead plaintiff brought a class action against a securities issuer on behalf of all purchasers of a bond offering. The issuer moved to dismiss arguing that nonresident class members who had not opted in were indispensable. The court rejected the motion because the absent members' interests were adequately represented and their joinder was not required for the action to proceed.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts472 U.S. 797 (USSC 1985)
Institutional Reform Suit Missing State Entity
Residents of a state hospital sued state officials seeking improved conditions under federal law. The complaint did not name the hospital itself as a defendant. The court held the hospital indispensable because any decree would directly bind its operations and budget and could not be enforced without its participation. The action was dismissed for failure to join the hospital.
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When does failure to join an indispensable party require dismissal rather than allowing the case to proceed?+
Dismissal is required when the court determines under Rule 19(b) that the absent party's interests cannot be protected and that proceeding would cause substantial prejudice that cannot be lessened by protective measures or shaped relief. The court also considers whether any judgment would be adequate and whether the plaintiff has an alternative forum.
Can a joint tortfeasor ever be an indispensable party?+
No. A joint tortfeasor subject to joint and several liability is not a required party under Rule 19 because complete relief can be accorded among the existing parties and the absent tortfeasor's interests are not impaired by a judgment against the joined defendant.
Is the defense of failure to join an indispensable party waived if not raised before trial?+
No. The defense may be raised by motion or in a pleading at any time before trial and may even be considered by the court sua sponte on appeal because it protects fundamental fairness interests that the rules treat as nonwaivable at the initial stages.
How does Rule 41(b) treat a dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party for preclusion purposes?+
Rule 41(b) states that such a dismissal does not operate as an adjudication on the merits. Jurisdictions remain free to decide independently whether the dismissal carries preclusive effect in a subsequent action.
369 U.S. 186, 211Constitutional Law
…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…