Also known as: Rule 19 · Rule 24 · FRCP 19 · FRCP 24 · joinder · intervention
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that require the joinder of certain parties whose presence is necessary for just adjudication and permit nonparties to intervene in pending litigation when their interests may be affected.
Roberto Reyes sued Regal Apparel in federal court for breach of a supply contract. Regal Apparel moved under Rule 12(b)(7) to dismiss the action because a necessary supplier whose rights would be directly affected had not been joined under Rule 19. The court examined whether the absent supplier's joinder was feasible and whether the action could proceed without it.
Ronald Reed sued Riverstone Manufacturing in federal court after a machine malfunction injured him. Riverstone moved to join a third-party repair company under Rule 19, arguing the repair company's absence would prevent complete relief among existing parties. The court assessed whether the repair company was a required party whose joinder was feasible.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rachel Ramirez brought a federal diversity action against Riverfront Developments. After the court permitted intervention by an additional defendant under Rule 24, Rachel Ramirez asserted a related state-law claim against that new party. The court determined whether the new claim formed part of the same case or controversy so that supplemental jurisdiction attached.
Ravi Reddy moved to intervene under Rule 24 in a pending federal civil rights action involving his neighbor. He asserted that disposition of the action might impair his own property interest. The court evaluated whether intervention of right was warranted under the rule.
Rosalind Reed was sued in federal court over a disputed property transfer. Her spouse moved to intervene under Rule 24, claiming an interest in the property that could be impaired by the litigation. The court considered whether the spouse satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right.
Roland Rhodes sued a foreign defendant in a state court action involving land located in another state. The court applied its own procedural rules to questions of joinder of parties while looking to the foreign state's law for substantive issues concerning the transfer. The selective approach allowed different issues to receive separate consideration under the laws of the interested states.
A court must dismiss when a required party cannot be joined and the action cannot proceed in equity and good conscience without that party. The determination requires balancing the interests of the parties, the absent person, and the public in efficient dispute resolution.
Rule 24 allows a nonparty to seek entry into an existing action when its interests may be impaired, while Rule 19 requires the court to join a person whose absence prevents complete relief or whose interests would be harmed. Intervention is permissive or of right. Joinder is mandatory when the criteria are met.
Section 1367(a) grants supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving joinder or intervention of additional parties when they form part of the same case or controversy. Section 1367(b) limits this authority in diversity cases to prevent destruction of complete diversity.
…according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an…