Also known as: necessary party rule · necessary parties · Rule 19
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural doctrine requiring joinder of every person whose legal interests may be impaired or defeated by the outcome of litigation. The rule ensures that a judgment binds all affected parties and that complete relief can be granted among those already before the court. Failure to join such parties can render the proceeding ineffective as to omitted interests or subject the judgment to later attack.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Liberty Trust begins foreclosure on Sun Charity's building but names only the mortgagor as defendant. Atlantic Coalition holds a recorded option to purchase upon default and several tenants hold recorded leaseholds. Because those recorded interests may be cut off by the sale, the court refuses to extinguish them and the purchaser takes subject to the unjoined claims.
Blue Production sues East Industries for defective control boards. East moves under Rule 12(b)(7) to dismiss because Ash Industries fabricated the boards and assumed primary warranty duties. The court denies the motion after finding that complete relief remains available between the existing parties even without Ash.
Carl, a State A citizen, sues Premier Athletic in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. He later seeks to add a nondiverse supplier as a required party under Rule 19. Section 1367(b) blocks supplemental jurisdiction over the new claim because it would destroy complete diversity.
Harold holds a fee tail limited to issue working in the automotive business. A repair shop claims adverse possession and a buyer seeks court approval of a sale. Steven and Laura, living issue who satisfy the class description, must be joined because the judgment may defeat their future interests.
A plaintiff repeatedly fails to join a party required by Rule 19 despite court orders. The defendant moves under Rule 41(b) to dismiss. The court grants the motion but the dismissal does not operate as an adjudication on the merits because the omitted party was required under Rule 19.
White firefighters challenge a consent decree that affects their seniority. The decree was entered in litigation to which they were not parties. The Supreme Court holds that they cannot be bound because they were never joined and had no obligation to intervene.
Living issue of the described class are necessary parties when litigation may defeat or impair their future interests. In an action challenging adverse possession or seeking court approval of a sale, the court must join those issue so the judgment binds them.
Supporting sources
The omitted junior lienholders, option holders, and tenants remain unaffected by the judgment. Their interests survive the sale because they were not joined and given notice as required by the necessary parties rule.
…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…
…court holding (as to this issue) in the Secretary's favor. There is no support for the dissent's novel contention, ibid. , that Rule 19 of the Federal
…and completeness of judgments would be "better [served] by mandatory joinder procedures." 18 Wright § 4452, p. 453. Accordingly, Rule 19
…husband, she cannot maintain a suit against him at law; but in equity she may do so, and against all others who may be proper or necessary parties
…of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only where there are special and important reasons therefor." Supreme Court Rule 19 (1). Review on certiorari therefore does not provide a normal appellate channel in any sense comparable to the writ of error. It is also true that Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114, a decision…
Supporting sources
Rule 12(b)(7) permits a motion to dismiss for failure to join a party required by Rule 19. The court first determines whether the absent person is required and then decides whether the action can proceed in equity and good conscience without that person.
Supporting sources
Section 1367(b) withholds supplemental jurisdiction over claims against persons joined under Rule 19 when the original jurisdiction rests solely on diversity. The rule prevents plaintiffs from using joinder to circumvent the complete-diversity requirement.
Supporting sources
Physical custodians are necessary parties because the court may order them to surrender the child. Due process requires formal service so they receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before any order binds them.
Supporting sources