Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in South Dakota

“SDCL 15-6-19(a) governs joinder of necessary parties. This statute provides in relevant part, [a] person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if:

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

(Agar School District # 58-1 Board of Education v. McGee, 527 N.W.2d 282, 287-88 [S.D. 1995].)

The Court's Discretion in Applying Joinder

“While the inclusion of necessary parties is up to the trial court's discretion, there is no discretion as to the inclusion of indispensable parties.” (Smith v. Albrecht, 361 N.W.2d 626, 628 [S.D. 1985] citing Kapp v. Hansen,79 S.D. 279, 111 N.W.2d 333 [1961].) “SDCL 15-6-19(a), which governs joinder of indispensable parties, requires the court to order joinder if it is feasible, i.e., the party is subject to service of process; the language is mandatory and leaves no discretion with the court.” (Smith, id., citing Shangreaux v. Westby, 281 N.W.2d 590 [S.D. 1979].)

“It is only when the joinder of a party is not feasible that the court must ‘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.’” (Shangreaux, supra at 592 citing SDCL 15-6-19(b).)

Proper Remedy for Failure to Join Parties

“The proper remedy for failure to join parties is joinder of the parties, and not dismissal of the lawsuit, so long as it is possible to join them.” (Agar School District # 58-1 Board of Education v. McGee, 527 N.W.2d 282, 287 [S.D. 1995] citing Johnson v. Adamski, 274 N.W.2d 267, 268 [S.D. 1979] citing SDCL 15-6-19(a); SDCL 15-6-19(b).)