A motion for joinder is a legal request made by a party in a lawsuit, seeking the court's permission to join additional parties or claims to the existing action. This motion aims to consolidate separate, yet related, legal issues or parties with shared interests or common questions of law or fact into a single proceeding. Joinder can improve the efficiency of the litigation process, save resources, and minimize the risk of inconsistent judgments. Understanding the motion for joinder is essential for grasping the intricacies of civil procedure and the strategies used by attorneys to streamline legal proceedings and promote fairness.
“Rule 21 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part: ‘Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and upon such terms as are just.’” (Arnold v. Spears (2001) 343 Ark. 517…)
It is well settled that “where feasible, joinder may be required of a person if, in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties.”(See Gerow v. Covill, 192 Ariz. 9, 14, ¶ 21 (App. 1998) [citing Cyber Ninjas, Inc. v. Hannah, 1 CA-SA 21-0173, at *5 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2021)].)
A motion for joinder has been interpreted to cover both “necessary” parties and “indispensable” ones. (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758.) Indispensability is determined by considering the parties’ status when relief is to be entered or when the issue of indispensability is raised. (County of Imperial v. Super. Ct. (State Water Resources Control Bd.) (2007) 152 CA4th 13, 36.) “The controlling test for determining whether a person is an indispensable party is…”
“C.R.C.P. 19 provides that a person must be joined as a party if, in the person's absence, (1) complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties; (2) disposition of the action might impair or impede the absent party's ability to protect that interest; or (3) disposition of the action might leave any party to the action subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations by reason of the absent party's claimed interest.” (See In re I.M. (2013)410 P.3d 488…)
Connecticut Practice Book § 9-3 states in relevant part: “All persons having an interest in the subject of the action, and in obtaining the judgment demanded, may be joined as plaintiffs, except as otherwise expressly provided; and, if one who ought to be joined as plaintiff declines to join, such person may be…”
“Under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(7), a defendant may move for dismissal because of a failure to join a party under Rule 19. Pursuant to Rule 19(a), the court must determine whether an absent person should be party to the litigation.”(See Makitka v. New Castle Cnty. Council, Civil Action No. 6653-VCG, at *7-8 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2011).)
“OCGA § 9–11–19, which governs the joinder of necessary parties, provides that persons subject to service of process shall be joined if complete relief cannot be afforded in their absence, or they have an interest relating to the subject matter of the action such that disposition in their absence may impair their ability to protect that interest or may subject any parties to the action to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations by reason of such interest.” (Artson, LLC v. Hudson (2013) 322 Ga. App. 859…)
“The standard of review of a trial court's refusal to require joinder of a party is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” (Carrao v. Health Care Service Corp. (1983) 118 Ill. App. 3d 417…)
“The purpose of T.R. 20(A) is to promote trial convenience, expedite claims, and avoid multiple lawsuits.” (See id.) “To accomplish these ends, Indiana courts give T.R. 20(A) the broadest possible reading, especially in light of T.R. 20(B) and T.R. 42(B), which allow for separate trials after all parties have been joined." (See Russell v. Bowman (2001) 744 N.E.2d 467 …)
“Rule 19(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure generally provides that the category of "[p]ersons to be [j]oined if [f]easible" includes one whose absence would prevent complete relief from being afforded those already parties.” (See Mass. R.Civ.P. 19(a), 365 Mass. 765 (1974); Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah (2005) 64 Mass. App….)
“The reason for such joinder of necessary parties is well known. ‘It is a general rule in equity that all parties entitled to litigate the same questions are necessary parties.’” (Yedinak v. Yedinak (1970) 383 Mich. 409…)
“In analyzing a question of joinder, a district court first should ask whether a person not yet served is a necessary party who shall be joined if feasible.” (See Hagle v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, A14-0473, at *12 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2015).)
“The presence of some unique factual circumstances in each of plaintiffs’ claims ... does not undercut the propriety of joinder.” (See Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson (2020) 608 S.W.3d 663…)
“The purpose of Rule 20(a) is to promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.” (See Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp. (2004) 358 N.C. 160…)
“Rule 19 deals with two classes of parties: necessary parties and indispensable parties.” (See United Bank of Bismarck v. Trout (1992) 480 N.W.2d 742…)
R. 4:28-1(a) defines an ‘indispensable party’ as one “in [whose] absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties" or who "claims an interest in the subject of the action and is so situated that the action cannot be disposed without affecting that interest.” (See Liebowitz v….)
“New Mexico makes no distinction between indispensable or necessary parties.” (La Madera Community Ditch Ass'n v. Sandia Peak Ski Co. (1995) 119 N.M. 591, 592 citing State ex rel. Sweet v. Village of Jemez Springs (1992) 114 N.M. 297…)
A necessary party is one whose non-joinder will jeopardize the outcome of the action in either of two ways: (1) complete relief cannot be accorded the existing parties to the action; or (2) the absentee may be inequitably affected by the judgment. (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 1001(a); Castaways Motel v….)
“R.C. 2721.12 mandates the joinder of necessary parties in order to avoid the possibility of piecemeal litigation and inconsistent results. Class certification would achieve these objectives.” (Binder v. Cuyahoga Cnty., 2016 Ohio 8305, 8 [Ohio Ct. App. 2016] finding that “appellants' complaint satisfies the requirements of R.C. 2721.12, unless and until class certification is denied.”])
“We review a district court's joinder of counts or denial of severance for an abuse of discretion.” (See Smith v. State (2007) 157 P.3d 1155…) (continue reading)
“We review the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on the failure to join an indispensable party for an abuse of discretion.” (See Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. Or. Water Res. Dep't (2022) 321 Or. App. 581…)
“Section 7540 of the Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 7540, provides that a declaratory judgment action will not lie unless all interested persons who could be affected by the judgment are joined as parties. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Diamond Fuel Company,464 Pa. 377, 346 A.2d 788 (1975), defined an indispensable party as ‘one whose rights are so directly connected with and affected by litigation that he must be a party of record to protect such rights, and his absence renders any order or decree of court null and void for want of jurisdiction.’” (Pennsylvania Med. Providers v. Foster (1990) 136 Pa. Commw. 232, 243 quoting e.g., County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth (1983) 71 Pa. Commw. 32.)
“In order for parties to be joined pursuant to Rule 20(a), there are two requirements which must be met: (1) A claim or claims asserted by the plaintiffs and/or against the defendants must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and there must be involved; and (2) a question of law or fact common to all the parties.” (See Hanes Dye and Finishing Company v. Caisson Corp. (1970) 309 F. Supp. 237…)
Tex. R. Civ. P. 39(a) states in relevant part, “A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if . . . he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action….”
“Rule 19, regarding joinder of parties, is modeled after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.” (See Grassy Brook Vill., Inc. v. Richard D. Blazej, Inc. (1981) 140 Vt. 477, 481; Nowakowski v. City of Rutland, SUPREME COURT No. 2019-174, at *1 (Vt. Nov. 14, 2019).)…)
“CR 19(a)(2)(A) requires joinder when a person claims an interest in the subject matter of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may impede his ability to protect that interest.” (See Coastal Building v. Seattle (1992) 65 Wn. App. 1, 5.)
“Whether an individual is a necessary party is a question of law we review de novo.” (See Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. McCallum (2002) WI App 259, ¶¶10-11, 258 Wis. 2d 210, 655 N.W.2d 474; Nelson v. Loessin (2020) 394 Wis. 2d 784…)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
