Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Hawaii

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

“It is well settled in this jurisdiction that all parties interested in the subject-matter of a suit in equity are necessary parties to the suit." (See Munoz v. Ashford (1955) 40 Haw. 675, 686.)

Specifically, “HRCP Rule 19(a)(1) provides that [a] person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if [] in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties[.]" (See Kim v. State, SCEC-18-0000650, at *4 (Haw. Aug. 27, 2018).)

“Although in the past a distinction had been made between necessary and indispensable parties, such a classification has been eliminated from the rule.” (See International Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Carbonel (2000) 93 Haw. 464, 471 n.11.)

“As explained by commentators of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 19, upon which the HRCP is based:

Rule 19(a) defines those persons who should be joined as parties in the action. Under the pre-1966 version of the rule, these parties would have been characterized as either ‘necessary’ or ‘indispensable.’ . . . [T]he necessary party label has been eliminated to emphasize that the real purpose of this rule is to bring before the court all persons whose joinder would be desirable for a just adjudication of the action and the term ‘indispensable’ is used in Rule 19(b) only in a conclusory sense. It is important to note that Rule 19(a) embraces all those persons who should be joined, including those whose joinder is not feasible and who ultimately may be regarded as indispensable under Rule 19(b).” (See International Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Carbonel (2000) 93 Haw. 464, 471 n.11; 7 C. Wright, A. Miller M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil sub. sec. 1604, at 36-37 (2d ed. 1986)

“The commentators explained that [p]rior to the federal rules, the idea that there were parties without whom a court could not proceed — those labeled indispensable — and parties whose presence was desirable and who should be joined if possible — those known as necessary — was well-established in federal practice." (See id.)

“Under the revised rule, [i]nstead of being concerned with whether past decisions indicate a particular person would be considered ‘necessary’ or ‘indispensable,’ Rule 19(a) and Rule 19(b) require the court to consider several factors thought relevant to the initial decision whether an absentee should be joined in the action and to a determination of what consequences should follow if joinder of the absentee is not feasible. Pragmatic considerations are to be controlling.” (See id.)

Joinder of Necessary Parties under Rule 19(a)

Pursuant to Rule 19 –Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication, “a person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if:

1. in such party's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or
2. such party claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in such party's absence may (A) as a practical matter impair or impede such party's ability to protect that interest or (B) leave any of the persons already parties subject to substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of such party's claimed interest.”

(See Haw. Dis. Ct. R. Civ. P. 19.)

“If such a party has not been so joined, the court shall order that such person be made a party. If such party should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, such party may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.” (See id.)

Factors Considered to Determine whether a Party is ‘Necessary’ under Rule 19(b)

“A court should consider the following four factors in determining whether a party is indispensable:

1. first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties;
2. second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided;
3. third, whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate;
4. fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.”

(See HRCP Rule 19(b); Marvin v. Pflueger (2012) 280 P.3d 88, 104.)

“The factors articulated in the Rule are in no way exclusive, and the court should consider the circumstances of each individual case.” (See id; Int'l Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Carbonel (2000) 93 Hawai‘i at 470, 5 P.3d at 460.)

Reasons for Nonjoinder under Rule 19(c)

“A pleading asserting a claim for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons as described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) hereof who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.” (See Haw. Dis. Ct. R. Civ. P. 19.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

“The circuit court's decisions regarding indispensable parties under Rule 19 are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” (See Marvin v. Pflueger (2012) 280 P.3d 88, 93; UFJ Bank Ltd. v. Ieda (2005) 109 Hawai‘i 137, 142, 123 P.3d 1232, 1237 quoting Walsh v. Centeio (1982) 692 F.2d 1239, 1243 [holding that the determination whether the action should proceed without the absentee, and therefore, the determination of indispensability itself under [HRCP] Rule 19(b)['s federal counterpart], remains in the sound discretion of the trial judge].)

"The [circuit] court abuses its discretion if it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence." (See id; Ranger Ins. Co. v. Hinshaw (2003)103 Hawai‘i 26, 30, 79 P.3d 119, 123.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties)

It is well settled that “a court may not reach the merits of a case until either the necessary parties are joined, or the court determines that the action may proceed in their absence.” (See Kellberg v. Yuen (2015) 349 P.3d 343, 345.)

It is also well settled that “In Mossman v. Hawaiian Trust Co. (1961), this court held that an absent party is indispensable if its presence is necessary to carry the suit to a conclusion on the merits for either party.” (See KAU AGRIBUSINESS v. HEIRS OF AHULAU (2004) 105 Haw. 182, 187.)