(a) Persons to be joined if feasible. A person who is subject to jurisdiction of the court 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 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. 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 verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19 tells a court when an absent person's interest in a lawsuit is so tied up with the outcome that the person must be brought into the case if possible, and, if not possible, whether the case can still go forward without them.
Full Text of Rule 19
(b) Determination by court whenever joinder not feasible. If a person as described in subdivision (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
[Amended eff. 10-1-95.]
Committee Comments
Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption
Where early chancery practice developed the terminology of “indispensable,” “necessary,” and “proper” parties, this rule points to the same result from the use of such earlier terminology but arrives at such result with greater emphasis on the pragmatic considerations which ultimately govern joinder of parties. The indispensable, necessary and proper terminology as elaborated in Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 130, 136, 15 L.Ed. 158 (1854), have been a usual part of all merged systems. See also Equity Rules 29 and 30, which will be superseded by this Rule and Rule 23. General principles developed from the terminology of indispensable, proper and necessary, remain applicable. The virtually identical counterpart to this Rule has been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as intended to reach the same results that had been available under Rules expressly employing such terminology. See Provident Tradesmen’s Bank and Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 88 S.Ct. 733, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968).
This Rule is identical to Federal Rule 19 except for elimination of language dealing with problems related to service of process and subject matter jurisdiction with which we are not concerned in state practice.
Rule 19(a) catalogs certain situations which, if applicable to persons not parties, would make them at least “necessary” parties as that term has been used in the past. Once the threshold determination has been made that a person not a party is within the frame of Rule 19(a) and is therefore at least a necessary party, it would be appropriate for the court to order his joinder upon Motion by the Defendant under Rule 12(b)(7) or Rule 21, or on the court’s own motion.
In the event a person is found to come within definition set forth in Rule 19(a), and it is further determined that said person cannot be made a party, the court, pursuant to Rule 17(b), must pass on the question as to whether the action should proceed in his absence. Rule 19(b) provides criteria to guide the court’s decision as to whether or not the action should proceed without the missing person. For example, relevant considerations include the extent to which the judgment rendered in his absence might be prejudicial to him or to those already parties. Further, the court should consider the extent to which prejudice can be lessened or avoided through protective provisions in the judgment, decree or other relief. Question of adequacy of a judgment in the person’s absence is relevant and, it would also be appropriate to consider whether the Plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action was dismissed for non-joinder.
Rule 19(c) requires the Plaintiff who has not joined a person who is potentially within the ambit of Rule 19(a) to plead the reasons why the plaintiff did not make these persons party.
Rule 19(d) clearly makes this Rule subject to any provisions contained in Rule 23, class actions.
The catalog of superseded statutes should be consulted in reference to this Rule. It is noted, in particular, that § 6-7-50, Code of Ala., creates a device wherein a necessary party plaintiff can be joined as an involuntary plaintiff upon the posting of a prescribed indemnity agreement. This statute remains in effect as it nicely complements the provisions of Rule 19(a) wherein joinder as an involuntary plaintiff is expressly provided.
Committee Comments to October 1, 1995, Amendment to Rule 19
The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.
District Court Committee Comments
For commentary as to the unavailability of Rule 23, see the District Court Committee Comments to Rule 23(dc).
Plain-English Summary
Some lawsuits can’t be properly or completely resolved without a particular person in the room. Maybe the court can’t give the plaintiff full relief unless that person is bound by the judgment. Maybe that person has a stake in the property or the dispute, and deciding the case without them could hurt their ability to protect that stake later, or could leave the existing parties open to being sued again by that same person over the same thing. Rule 19 gives courts a practical way to spot these situations and requires that the missing person be added to the case whenever the court can get jurisdiction over them.
If the person can be brought in, the court orders it — the plaintiff doesn’t get to leave someone out just because it’s inconvenient or because the plaintiff would rather not deal with them. Someone who ought to be a plaintiff but won’t cooperate can instead be named as a defendant, which lets the case proceed and lets that person’s interests be represented one way or another. But sometimes the absent person truly cannot be joined — the court may lack a way to bring them in, or joining them would break venue rules and force their dismissal anyway. When that happens, Rule 19 asks the court to weigh a set of practical factors: how much harm the absent person or the existing parties would suffer from a judgment made without them, whether the court can soften that harm by tailoring the relief it gives, whether a judgment without the absentee would mean much in practice, and whether the plaintiff would have anywhere else to go if the court dismissed the case outright. Balancing those factors, the court decides whether to press on without the missing person or to end the case because that person’s absence makes fair resolution impossible.
Rule 19 also requires a plaintiff to tell the court, up front, about anyone who fits this description but hasn’t been joined, along with the reason why. This isn’t a rule most people read looking for it, but skipping it can create real problems: a defendant can raise the missing party as a defense, and a judgment entered without someone who needed to be there can be vulnerable to challenge. Property disputes, disputes among co-owners or joint titleholders, and cases involving multiple people with overlapping legal interests are classic settings where Rule 19 issues come up.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for someone to be a "necessary" party under Rule 19?
It means the person has such a strong stake in the outcome that the case cannot be properly or completely resolved without them — either because the court can’t give full relief in their absence, or because deciding the case without them could hurt their interests or expose the existing parties to conflicting obligations later.
What happens if the person who should be joined refuses to participate?
If that person should really be a plaintiff but will not join voluntarily, the court can instead name them as a defendant, which brings them into the case and lets the court account for their interests even though they did not want to sue.
Can a case still proceed if a necessary party can’t be brought into the lawsuit?
Sometimes. The court weighs factors like how much prejudice would result, whether that prejudice can be reduced by shaping the judgment, whether a judgment without the absent person would mean anything in practice, and whether the plaintiff has another way to get relief. Depending on that balance, the court either proceeds without the person or dismisses the case.
Do I have to tell the court if I’m leaving someone out of my lawsuit who might belong in it?
Yes. Rule 19 requires a pleading to name any such person, if known, and explain why they have not been joined. This disclosure obligation is easy to overlook but matters if the omission is later challenged.
How is Rule 19 different from Rule 20’s joinder of parties?
Rule 19 is about parties who must be joined because the case cannot be properly resolved without them. Rule 20 is about parties who may be joined voluntarily because their claims or defenses share common facts or arise from the same events. Rule 19 is mandatory where it applies; Rule 20 is optional.
Source & verification. The rule text, amendment history, and Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (Ala. R. Civ. P. 19). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Alabama (Ala. Const. amend. 328, § 6.11). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 6, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: necessary partiesindispensable partiesjoinder of persons needed for just adjudicationwho must be joined in a lawsuitfailure to join a necessary partyAla. R. Civ. P. 19