(a) Permissive joinder. All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action. All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. A plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective rights to relief, and against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.
Rule 20.Permissive joinder of parties.
Last verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 20 lets multiple plaintiffs sue together, or multiple defendants be sued together, whenever their claims come out of the same event or series of events and share a common question of law or fact.
Full Text of Rule 20
(b) Separate trials. The court may make such orders as will prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to expense by the inclusion of a party against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party, and may order separate trials or make other orders to prevent delay or prejudice.
(dc) District court rule. Rule 20 applies in the district courts.
Amendment History
[Amended eff. 10-1-95.]
Committee Comments
Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption
This rule differs from Federal Rule 20 only in the omission of a parenthetical phrase dealing with joinder in admiralty in rem cases. The rule is intended to promote trial convenience, prevent a multiplicity of suits, and expedite the final determination of litigation by inclusion in one suit of all parties directly interested in the controversy despite technical objections previously existing in many situations. It also recognizes the economy of a procedure under which several demands arising out of the same occurrence may be tried together, thus avoiding the reiteration of the evidence relating to facts common to the several demands. 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1592 (1972). Thus the rule makes joinder of parties virtually unlimited, but cloaks the court with ample powers, under Rules 20(b), 21 and 42(b), to ensure that the trial is conducted in the most convenient and least prejudicial manner.
The rule will permit several plaintiffs injured as a result of a common tort to join in one suit and claim damages personal to them, e.g., Franklin v. Shelton, 250 F.2d 92, 95 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied 355 U.S. 959, 78 S.Ct. 544, 2 L.Ed.2d 533; Smith v. Brown, 17 F.R.D. 39 (D.C.Pa.1955); Thomson v. United Glazing Co., 36 F.Supp. 527 (W.D.N.Y.1941), contrary to present Alabama practice. See Brookside-Pratt Mining Co. v. McAlister, 196 Ala. 110, 72 So. 18 (1916). It will allow joinder of different claims against different parties in different counts, provided that there is a question of law or fact common to all the parties and that the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences. Hopper v. Lennen & Mitchell, 52 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.Cal.1943). Such joinder is not possible under present Alabama law. McMahen v. Western Union Tel. Co., 209 Ala. 319, 96 So. 265 (1923). By express provision of the rule, judgment is to be given according to the respective rights and liabilities of the parties as proved at the trial, contrary to the holding in Redmond v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 154 Ala. 311, 45 So. 649 (1908).
This rule is procedural only. The present prohibition against joinder of an insurer in an action against its insured is in no way altered by this rule. See Notes to Rule 18.
Committee Comments to October 1, 1995, Amendment to Rule 20
The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 20 answers a different question than Rule 18 does. Rule 18 asks how many claims one plaintiff can bring against one defendant. Rule 20 asks how many people can be plaintiffs or defendants together in the first place. The answer: as many as fit two conditions. First, their claims (or the claims against them) have to arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of connected transactions or occurrences — think of a single car wreck injuring several passengers, or a string of related deals gone bad. Second, the case has to raise at least one legal or factual question common to everyone joined. If both conditions hold, the people can sue or be sued together even though their individual claims and damages differ, and even though none of them wants or needs everything the others are asking for.
This rule solves a real practical problem: without it, five people hurt in the same wreck might each have to file a separate lawsuit, forcing the same witnesses to testify five times and risking five different juries reaching five different conclusions about what happened. Rule 20 lets them go forward together, and the court sorts out at the end who recovers what from whom — a judgment can favor some plaintiffs and not others, and can hold some defendants liable while clearing others, all within the same case. Nobody joined under Rule 20 has to care about every claim in the case or defend against every piece of relief sought; each party’s stake can be its own.
Joining many parties together doesn’t mean everyone has to be tried together. If having an unrelated or only loosely connected party in the mix would waste someone’s time, run up their costs, or embarrass them by association, the court can order separate trials or otherwise manage the case to prevent that unfairness. Rule 20 differs from Rule 19 in a basic way: Rule 20 is about who may join a case by choice, while Rule 19 is about who must be brought in because the case can’t be properly decided without them. And because joining too many parties can eventually overwhelm a single courtroom, cases that grow large enough sometimes shift toward class-action treatment instead of ordinary joinder.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can several people injured in the same accident file one lawsuit together?
Yes, if their claims arise out of the same accident and share a common question of law or fact, Rule 20 lets them join as co-plaintiffs in a single action even though their injuries and damages differ.
Can I sue two different defendants in the same lawsuit if they were involved in the same incident?
Yes. Rule 20 allows joinder of multiple defendants when a right to relief is asserted against them arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, or a series of connected ones, and a common question of law or fact will come up in the case.
Does every plaintiff joined in a case have to want the same relief?
No. Rule 20 makes clear that a plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief sought in the case. The judgment can be tailored so each party wins or loses only on the claims that involve them.
What if being joined with other parties makes the case unfair or expensive for me?
The court can step in. Rule 20 allows the judge to order separate trials or other protective measures to prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to needless expense because of another party’s inclusion in the case.
How does Rule 20 differ from Rule 19?
Rule 20 covers parties who choose to join, or are permissively joined, because their claims share a common origin and a common question. Rule 19 covers parties who must be joined because the lawsuit cannot be properly resolved in their absence. One is optional joinder; the other is mandatory.
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. 20). 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: permissive joinder of partiesjoining multiple plaintiffsjoining multiple defendantssame transaction or occurrence joindersuing together in one caseAla. R. Civ. P. 20