Also known as: necessary and indispensable party · necessary parties · indispensable parties · indispensable party · Rule 19 parties · joinder parties
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Parties required to be joined in litigation because their interests would be impaired by a judgment rendered in their absence or because complete relief cannot be afforded among the existing parties without them. State statutes and procedural rules identify the specific interests that trigger joinder. Failure to join such parties may leave their rights intact or prevent dismissal on the merits.
Creek Fleet held a mortgage on property owned by Premier Motor. After default, Creek Fleet foreclosed but omitted View Automotive, a junior deed-of-trust holder, and River Fleet, a tenant operating under a recorded lease. The sale closed without notice to either omitted party. View Automotive and River Fleet retained their interests because neither was joined as a necessary party.
Noreen Nguyen sued Nexus Financial in federal court. The court dismissed the action for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19. Nexus Financial later argued that the dismissal barred a second suit on claim-preclusion grounds. The dismissal did not operate as an adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nia Nkosi held a fee tail estate. Noah Nakamura, her living issue, held a protected remainder interest. A third party challenged the validity of the fee tail in litigation that could defeat Noah's interest. Noah was a necessary party and had to be joined for the judgment to bind the interest.
Phillips Petroleum faced a class action in Kansas brought by royalty owners including absent nonresidents. The company sought assurance that the judgment would bind the entire class to avoid later suits. Absent class members whose interests could be impaired were necessary parties whose joinder or jurisdictional consent was required for preclusive effect.
Exxon Mobil sued multiple plaintiffs whose claims satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement only through aggregation. Some plaintiffs lacked independent diversity. The additional parties whose presence completed the controversy were joined under supplemental jurisdiction without destroying the action.
State Farm insured multiple defendants facing interpleader claims after an accident. One defendant argued that other potential tortfeasors must be joined before the action could proceed. The absent joint tortfeasors were not indispensable parties whose absence required dismissal of the interpleader.
The junior lienholder's interest survives the foreclosure sale. The mortgagee must join necessary parties such as junior lienholders so that the sale can extinguish those interests. Without joinder and notice, the lien remains intact and the purchaser takes subject to it.
Supporting sources
No. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) states that such a dismissal does not operate as an adjudication on the merits. Jurisdictions may treat the dismissal differently for preclusion purposes, but the rule itself does not convert the dismissal into a merits judgment.
Supporting sources
No. A joint tortfeasor subject to joint and several liability is not a person required for just adjudication under compulsory joinder rules. The action may proceed without the absent tortfeasor.
Supporting sources
Living issue holding an interest in a fee tail are necessary parties in any action challenging the validity of the estate or that may defeat their interest. Their joinder is required so that the judgment can bind the protected remainder.
Supporting sources
…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…