Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Minnesota

Background

“In Minnesota, all persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief, jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of fact or law common to all these persons will arise in the action.” (See Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Nishika Ltd. (1997) 565 N.W.2d 16, 22.)

“Such rules allow certain plaintiffs to seek relief in a single action, whether their right to relief is joint or not.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if (a) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties.” (See Hagle v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, A14-0473, at *11 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2015).)

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

“If a person as described in Rule 19.01 cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“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).)

“If the first question is answered in the affirmative, but the person cannot be made a party, the court next must ask a second question, whether the action should proceed without the absent person or whether the action should be dismissed because the absent person is ‘indispensable.’” (See id.)

"An indispensable party is a party without whom the action could not proceed in equity and good conscience." (See id.)

“This court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court's application of rules 19.01 and 19.02.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that "persons other than those made parties to the original action may be made parties to [the] counterclaim . . . in accordance with the provisions of Rules 19 and 20, which govern the joinder of parties. Under rule 20.01, a party has the right to join a person against whom the [party] can state a claim." (See Krech v. Krech, Nos. A09-1614, A09-1836, at *11 (Minn. Ct. App. May 25, 2010).)

It is also well settled that “first, the court must determine if a person or entity is a necessary party and whether joinder is feasible under rule 19.01. A party is necessary if complete relief cannot be granted in its absence or it claims an interest in the subject of the litigation. If a necessary party is subject to the court's jurisdiction, it must be joined in the action. However, if a necessary party cannot feasibly be joined, usually because of jurisdictional issues, the court must determine whether the party is indispensable.” (See CHS, Inc. v. Martinez, No. A18-1241, at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2019).)