Also known as: FRCP 19 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 · required joinder · necessary parties
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that identifies persons who must be joined as parties if feasible because their absence prevents complete relief or impairs their interests or subjects existing parties to inconsistent obligations.
Roberto Reyes holds a first mortgage on property owned by Rebecca Ross. When Ross defaults, Reyes commences foreclosure naming only Ross. A junior lien recorded by Raven Logistics is omitted from the action. The court refuses to extinguish the junior lien because the lienholder was a necessary party who received no notice.
Rajesh Rao sues Rita Russell for breach of a supply contract. Russell files a timely Rule 12(b)(7) motion asserting that Rocky Mountain Mining, the actual fabricator with primary warranty duties, must be joined. The court examines whether complete relief is possible without the absent fabricator.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Riley Rivera, a citizen of State A, sues Riverstone Manufacturing, a State B citizen, for $100,000. Rivera later seeks to add a State A citizen as a required plaintiff under Rule 19. The court declines supplemental jurisdiction because the addition would destroy complete diversity.
Ricardo Rojas holds a fee tail preserved for life only, limited to issue working in automotive sales. A buyer seeks court approval to sell part of the land free of the limitation. Steven, an adult son who manages a dealership, must be joined because the sale may defeat his future interest.
Rebecca Ross sues Roberto Reyes but fails to join a required co-owner. The court dismisses under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute after repeated orders to add the co-owner. Because the dismissal rests on nonjoinder under Rule 19, it does not operate as an adjudication on the merits.
A group of employees sues their employer for back wages. Former employees with identical claims are not joined. The court requires their joinder under Rule 19 rather than relying on permissive intervention because only joinder guarantees the judgment binds all interested persons.
Rule 19(a) requires joinder if the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties without the absent person, or if the absent person claims an interest that may be impaired or that may subject existing parties to inconsistent obligations.
Supporting sources
Rule 19(b) directs the court to consider factors including prejudice to existing parties, the extent to which relief can be shaped, and whether the judgment will be adequate, then decide whether to proceed or dismiss the action.
Supporting sources
Section 1367(b) withholds supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons joined under Rule 19 when exercising jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the requirements of section 1332.
Supporting sources
A defendant may raise failure to join a required party by pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b)(7). The defense may also be raised later under Rule 12(h)(2) by motion for judgment on the pleadings or at trial.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 41(b) expressly excepts dismissals for failure to join a party under Rule 19 from the general rule that such dismissals operate as adjudications on the merits.
Supporting sources
…14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional…