(a) Persons to Be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest. If the person has not been 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. If the joined party objects to venue and joinder of that party would render the venue of the action improper, that party shall be dismissed from the action.
Rule 19.Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication.
Last amended July 15, 1994 · Last verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19 requires a court to bring in any absent person needed for complete relief or whose interest could be harmed by the case moving forward without them, and directs the court, when that person can't be joined, to weigh whether the case can proceed in equity and good conscience or must be dismissed.
Full Text of Rule 19
(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not Feasible. If a person as described in subsection (a)(1)–(2) hereof 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. The factors to be considered by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties; 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; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.
(c) Pleading Reasons for Nonjoinder. 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.
Amendment History
(Adopted by SCO 5 October 9, 1959; rescinded and promulgated by SCO 258 effective November 15, 1976; amended by SCO 1153 effective July 15, 1994)
Notes
Note: AS 10.06.015(a)(1), as enacted by ch. 166, § 1, SLA 1988, amended Civil Rule 19 by making parties to a contract covered by AS 10.06.015(a)(1), indispensable parties to an action under AS 10.06.015(a)(1). AS 10.06.378(c) as enacted by ch. 166, § 1, SLA 1988, amended Civil Rule 19 by allowing a shareholder sued under the section to join certain parties in a lawsuit against the shareholder without using the criteria of Civil Rule 19. AS 10.06.463, as enacted by ch. 166, § 1, SLA 1988, amended Civil Rule 19 by requiring that a corporation be made a party to an action to remove a director of the corporation. AS 10.06.580(b), as enacted by ch. 166, § 1, SLA 1988, amended Civil Rule 19 by making qualified dissenting shareholders indispensable parties to an action covered by AS 10.06.580.
Plain-English Summary
A person subject to service of process, whose joinder wouldn't destroy the court's jurisdiction, must be joined if complete relief can't be given among the parties already in the case without them, or if that person claims an interest in the case that could practically be impaired by proceeding without them, or that could leave existing parties facing a real risk of double or inconsistent obligations. A person who should join as a plaintiff but refuses can be made a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff; but if joining someone would ruin venue, that person must be dismissed instead.
When a required person can't be joined, the court has to decide, in equity and good conscience, whether the case should go forward without them or be dismissed — treating the absent person as indispensable. The court weighs how much a judgment might prejudice the absent person or the existing parties, whether that prejudice can be reduced through protective terms or shaped relief, whether a judgment without the absent person would even be adequate, and whether the plaintiff would have any other adequate remedy if the case were dismissed. A pleading has to name any such unjoined person, if known, and explain why they weren't joined. Rule 19 gives way to Rule 23 in class actions.
Frequently Asked Questions
When must a court add someone to a lawsuit under Rule 19?
When complete relief can’t be given without them, or when they claim an interest that could practically be impaired by the case proceeding, or that could expose existing parties to inconsistent obligations — and they can be served and joining them wouldn’t destroy the court’s jurisdiction.
What happens if a necessary person can’t be joined?
The court weighs prejudice to the absent person and existing parties, whether that prejudice can be reduced, whether a judgment without them would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff has another remedy — then decides whether to proceed or dismiss the case.
Do I have to explain in my complaint why I didn’t name someone?
Yes — Rule 19(c) requires a pleading to name any known person who should have been joined under this rule and state why they weren’t.
Source & verification. The rule text, Amendment History, and Notes are reproduced verbatim from the
official Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure (Alaska R. Civ. P. 19). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Alaska (Alaska Const. art. IV, § 15). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 6, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: necessary and indispensable parties Alaskajoinder of persons needed ruleRule 19 Alaska lawsuitfailure to join indispensable partyAlaska R. Civ. P. 19