Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
Rule 21.Misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties.
Last verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 21 keeps a lawsuit alive even when the wrong parties got mixed into it, letting the court add or drop parties and split off individual claims into separate cases instead of throwing the whole action out.
Full Text of Rule 21
(dc) District court rule. Rule 21 applies in the district courts.
Amendment History
This rule has not been amended since its adoption.
Committee Comments
Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption
The rule principally relates to parties, not claims. Note that it addresses itself to two separate problems—misjoinder and non-joinder. The statement in the first sentence of the rule as to the impropriety of dismissal is relevant only to a misjoinder of parties. Of course, final dismissal may be appropriate in a case of non-joinder where Rule 19(b) applies. Non-joinder can be raised by a Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss. Whether final dismissal is appropriate will turn upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Rule 19. A Rule 21 motion is also available in the non-joinder context in order to seek addition of the non-joined person. However, a misjoinder defect cannot be raised by a motion to dismiss but should be raised by a motion under this Rule. See, generally, 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1684, p. 329 (1972). The practice under this Rule with respect to misjoinder differs from prior practice. Formerly, a misjoinder, unless waived, was fatal to recovery. Bell v. Allen, 53 Ala. 125 (1875); Patton v. Crow, 26 Ala. 426 (1855); Mosaic Templars of America v. Flanagan, 22 Ala.App. 377, 115 So. 860 (1928).
Committee Comments Adopted February 13, 2004, to Rule 21
Rule 21 provides that: “Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.” Confusion has sometimes arisen between a true severance and an order providing for separate trials pursuant to Rule 42(b). The distinction has at least the significance that a judgment on the first of two separate trials is not final, absent an order pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala.R.Civ.P., while after a true severance a judgment on the first action to come to trial is final and appealable without reference to the proceedings in the severed action. Key v. Robert M. Duke Ins. Agency, 340 So.2d 781, 783 (Ala.1976). In Bryant v. Flagstar Enterprises, Inc., 717 So.2d 400 (Ala.Civ.App.1998), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal from the first of two separate trials, holding that no final judgment had been entered. The Court relied upon Key, supra, and Seybold v. Magnolia Land Co., 372 So.2d 865, 866 (Ala.1979). See 1 Champ Lyons, Jr., Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure Annotated §§ 21.5, 21.7, and 42.3 (3d ed. 1996).
To avoid ambiguity at the time of bifurcation and later uncertainty as to finality, a party seeking a severance or a separate trial should request that the court make clear whether a Rule 21 severance or a Rule 42(b) separate trial is intended. Opinion of the Clerk, 526 So.2d 584, 586 (Ala.1988), expressed the clerk’s opinion that the plaintiff in the severed action should pay a filing fee “[w]here a ‘true’ severance under Rule 21 is ordered and the clerk dockets a separate case with a new civil action number.” (See also § 12-19-70, Code of Alabama 1975, regarding the waiver of the filing fee based on a verified statement of substantial hardship.) Thus, the parties may remove any ambiguity by obtaining a new docket number and paying a separate filing fee, if a severance is intended and appropriate.
Note from the reporter of decisions: The order adopting the Committee Comments to Rules 5, 15, 21, 23, 24, and 42, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, effective February 13, 2004, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from 865 So.2d.
Plain-English Summary
Under older practice, putting the wrong combination of parties into a lawsuit could sink the entire case, no matter how solid the underlying claims were. Rule 21 ends that. It says flatly that misjoinder of parties — joining someone who doesn’t belong, or joining a plaintiff whose claim has nothing to do with the others — is never, by itself, a reason to dismiss the whole action. Because Rules 18 and 20 already allow so much flexibility in what claims and parties may be combined, situations that truly qualify as misjoinder are rare. But when one crops up, Rule 21 makes sure it’s a fixable problem rather than a fatal one.
The fix comes in two forms, and the court can use either, and can act on its own initiative or on a party’s motion. First, the court can add or drop parties, at any point in the case, on whatever terms are fair given the circumstances. Second, and often the better option, the court can sever a claim against a particular party so that it proceeds as its own separate action, with its own docket number, rather than dismissing it outright. That distinction can matter enormously: if a claim is dismissed and has to be refiled later, a statute of limitations that has since expired can bar it for good. If the claim is instead severed, it keeps the benefit of its original filing date even though it now moves forward independently.
It helps to keep Rule 21 severance distinct from an order for separate trials. A separate trial, ordered to make a complicated case more manageable, still produces claims that are part of the same lawsuit, and a decision on one piece of it typically isn’t a final, appealable judgment until the whole case wraps up or the court says otherwise. A true severance under Rule 21 creates an independent action that can reach final judgment, and become appealable, on its own timeline. Because the two devices look similar in practice but carry very different consequences for appeal rights and filing deadlines, it’s worth being clear — and asking the court to be clear — about which one is happening.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my whole case get thrown out because I sued the wrong combination of parties?
No. Rule 21 specifically provides that misjoinder of parties is not grounds for dismissing an action. The court instead has tools to fix the problem, such as dropping the misjoined party or severing the claim into a separate case.
What is the difference between severing a claim and just dismissing it?
Severance turns the claim into its own independent lawsuit that keeps the benefit of the original filing date, while dismissal ends that claim within the case and, if it must be refiled later, risks being barred by the statute of limitations in the meantime.
Can the court add or remove parties without anyone asking it to?
Yes. Rule 21 lets the court add or drop parties on its own initiative, not only when a party files a motion asking for it, and it can do so at any stage of the case on terms that are fair to everyone involved.
Is a "severance" under Rule 21 the same thing as a "separate trial"?
No, and the difference matters. A separate trial under a different rule still keeps the claims within one lawsuit, so a ruling on one part is usually not a final, appealable judgment until the whole case ends. A true Rule 21 severance creates an independent action capable of reaching its own final, appealable judgment.
If the court severs my claim, do I need to pay a new filing fee?
Generally yes, because a severed claim becomes its own separate action with its own case number, even though it keeps the benefit of the earlier filing date for statute of limitations purposes.
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. 21). 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: misjoinder of partiesnonjoinder of partiessevering claimsdropping or adding partiesseverance versus separate trialAla. R. Civ. P. 21