19(a) (1) 19(a) (2)(i) 19(a) (2)(ii) Feasible to Join? Proceed w/o Absentee Join Absentee Dismiss Case 19(b) Yes No
Standard: Rule 19(a)(1) Insider cannot get meaningful relief From another insider Unless an outsider is joined Often a situation in which substantive law forbids entering judgment against one party without entering judgment against another. Courts sometimes consider the likelihood of multiple suits burdening the judicial system Courts consider the relief that would be available to a successful defendant as well as to the plaintiff
Examples: Rule 19(a)(1) Suit v. David to assert lien against property held by David & Alice as tenants by the entirety. Suit v. US by one of two groups each of whom claims exclusive fishing rights without joining other claimant. Suit v. State Party challenging delegate selection rules since National Party convention decides who will be seated.
Standard: Rule 19(a)(2)(i) Outsider claims an interest Proceeding without the outsider will Impair outsiders ability to protect or assert the outsiders interest As a practical matter
Examples: Rule 19(a)(2)(i) Claimants to a limited common fund. Substantial risk of collateral estoppel against outsider. Despite Janney, many courts hold that sufficiently harmful persuasive effect on outsider is enough. Ex-husband in suit by ex-wife to have Army pay part of retirement to her.
Adjoining Landowners sue Railroad for Injunction to Stop Operating Spur Is Ford Conditionall y Necessary
One Way of Looking at Janney under 19(a)(2)(i) If S-N wins (not obligated to J), what effect on UW (outsider) in later suit By Janney v. UW? By UW v. S-N? If S-N loses (is obligated to J), what effect on UW (outsider) in later suit By S-N v. UW? By Janney v. UW?
Examples of Situations That Do Not Fall Under Rule 19(a)(2)(i) Joint Tortfeasors Other Victims of Single Tort (but see limited fund situation) Alternative Tortfeasors Mere stare decisis effect situations.
Standard: Rule 19(a)(2)(ii) Outsider claims an interest Proceeding without the outsider will create Substantial risk of exposing one of the insiders To multiple inconsistent liability Often a situation in which two people want insider to do two different things and the insider could never be legally obligated to do both.
Examples: Rule 19(a)(2)(ii) Suit by employee v. employer claiming that seniority agreement is invalid. Why would union be conditionally necessary under 19(a)(2)(ii)? Suit by named beneficiary of life insurance policy for policy proceeds despite allegations that beneficiary killed insured. Why would contingent beneficiary be conditionally necessary?
Helzberg Case H & SC enter into lease which limits # of full-line jewelry stores. SC enters into new lease w/ Lords which may permit Lords to open a full-line jewelry store in the center. H sues SC to enjoin SC from letting Lords open such a store. H does not join Lords (no personal jurisdiction). SC claims Lords must be joined.
Helzberg Case Under Rule 19(a) Is Lords a Rule 19(a)(2)(i) party? Why? Would Lords have been bound by a judgment in the H v. SC case? Was Lords a R 19(a)(2)(ii) party? What happens to SC if H wins its suit and then Lords also sues SC and wins? Isnt this multiple liability? Isnt it inconsistent liability? Why not? How is the Helzberg case different from the life insurance case? Is Lords a 19(a)(1) party? Without Lords, can the court grant complete relief among those already parties??
Rule 19(b) Factors: How much prejudice to Outsider Insiders? Can prejudice be avoided by The courts own actions Action by the person prejudiced? How inadequate (hollow) will the judgment be? Is another forum available where all can be joined? Compare 19(a)(2)(i) Compare 19(a)(1) Compare 19(a)(2)(ii)
Helzberg Case Under Rule 19(b) How much prejudice to Lords? How much prejudice to SC? Why dont we much care about prejudice to SC? Could prejudice be avoided by Lords or by the Court? How inadequate (hollow) will the judgment be? Is there another forum available where all the parties could be joined?