(a) Persons to Be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or, (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter, impair or impede his 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 his claimed interest. If he has not been joined, the court shall order that he be made a party. If he should join as a plaintiff, but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant; or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.
Rule 19.Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication
Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19 tells a court when an absent person must be brought into a lawsuit before it can go forward, and what to do when that person cannot be joined.
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: (1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; (2) 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; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; (4) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.
Reporter's Notes
Reporter’s Notes to Rule 19: 1. Rule 19 deals with compulsory joinder of parties. With the exception of the omission of the last sentence of FRCP 19(a), this rule is the same as its federal counterpart. It is believed that the omitted sentence dealing with venue is unnecessary under state practice. Section 19(a) requires the person joined to be subject to service of process; therefore, the fact that such person could otherwise object to venue is of no consequence where existing defendants are properly before the court. This is the effect of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-615 (Repl. 1962) which remains unaffected by these rules.
2. Section 19(a) concerns itself with the question of who is a "necessary" party while 19(b) deals with whether a necessary party is an indispensable party. Wright v. First National Bank, 483 F.2d 73 (C.C.A. 10th, 1973); Charon v. Meaux, 60 F.R.D. 107 (D.C. N.Y., 1973). The policy behind FRCP 19 is to avoid dismissal of actions where possible and when it is possible to join an absent party, dismissal is not proper as such party will be ordered to enter the action as a defendant or plaintiff. 3. Superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-808 (Repl. 1962) provided that parties who were united in interest must be joined as plaintiffs or defendants. Superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-814 (Repl. 1962) provided that where a controversy could not be resolved without prejudice to others or by preserving their rights, then the other parties had to be brought in as parties. This rule, following FRCP 19, abolishes the rigid distinctions between necessary and indispensable parties and instead places the emphasis upon the practical effects a judgment might have upon an absent party.
4. Section (c) of FRCP 19 is omitted from this rule. If there are questions as to defects in parties plaintiff, it is the Committee’s view that this is more appropriately an issue which should be raised by a defendant under Rule 12(b).
5. The exception of class actions in 19(c) is for obvious reasons. Rule 23 suggests that absent class members can never be considered indispensable and it is doubtful that they can be considered necessary parties. Watson v. Branch County Bank, 380 F. Supp. 945 (D.C. Mich., 1974).
Plain-English Summary
Rule 19(a) identifies people whose absence threatens to make a lawsuit incomplete or unfair, and who must be joined if the court can get them served with process. Someone falls into this category if the case cannot grant complete relief among the existing parties without them, or if that person claims an interest in the subject of the suit and resolving the case without them would, as a practical matter, damage their ability to protect that interest, or would leave the existing parties exposed to double or inconsistent obligations because of the absent person's claim. If the court finds such a person and they can be served, the court orders them joined; someone who should be a plaintiff but refuses can be made a defendant, or, in the right case, an involuntary plaintiff.
The harder problem arises when that person cannot be joined at all -- often because the court lacks a way to serve them. Rule 19(b) does not ask whether the person is theoretically important; it asks whether the case can proceed on just terms without them, weighing how much a judgment might prejudice the absent person or the existing parties, whether protective measures in the judgment could soften that prejudice, whether a judgment reached without the absent person would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff has any adequate remedy left if the court dismisses instead. Only after working through those factors does the court decide whether to proceed or to dismiss, treating the absent person as indispensable if dismissal is the answer.
The rule's own structure explains a distinction that trips up a lot of readers: subsection (a) is where a court decides whether someone counts as a person who ought to be joined, and subsection (b) is where the court decides, only for those who cannot be brought into the case, whether it can go on without them or must be dismissed. Older Arkansas practice drew a sharper line between parties who were merely necessary and those who were indispensable, with different consequences attached to each label. This rule replaces that rigid dichotomy with a single practical inquiry -- can the court do justice among the people before it -- and reserves dismissal for the cases where the answer is no.
Section (c) makes clear that Rule 19 gives way to Rule 23 in class actions. Absent class members are represented through the class mechanism itself, so the joinder analysis that governs ordinary lawsuits does not fit their situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a "necessary" party under Arkansas procedure?
Rule 19(a) describes who must be joined if feasible: a person without whom the court cannot grant complete relief, or a person who claims an interest in the subject of the suit that would be practically impaired by proceeding without them, or that would expose the existing parties to inconsistent obligations. The rule does not use the label "necessary" itself, but that is the shorthand courts use for people meeting this description.
What happens if a necessary party cannot be joined?
The court turns to Rule 19(b) and weighs whether the case can proceed on just terms without that person -- considering possible prejudice to the absent person or the existing parties, whether the judgment can be shaped to reduce that prejudice, whether a judgment reached without them would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff has another adequate remedy if the case is dismissed. If the balance favors dismissal, the absent person is treated as indispensable.
What is the difference between a necessary party and an indispensable party?
Every indispensable party starts out as a person described in Rule 19(a), but not every such person turns out to be indispensable. The label "indispensable" attaches only after the Rule 19(b) analysis concludes that the case cannot proceed without that person in a way that does justice to everyone involved, and must be dismissed instead.
Can someone who should be a plaintiff be forced into the case?
Yes. Rule 19(a) allows a person who should join as a plaintiff, but refuses, to be made a defendant instead, or, in the right circumstances, an involuntary plaintiff.
Does Rule 19 apply to absent members of a class action?
No. Rule 19(c) makes the joinder rule subject to Rule 23, and absent class members are represented through the class action mechanism rather than analyzed under the joinder factors in Rule 19.
Who has to be served with process before the court will order them joined under Rule 19?
The rule applies only to a person who is subject to service of process. If the person cannot be served, the case moves to the Rule 19(b) analysis of whether the action can proceed without them.
Source & verification. Rule text, Reporter's Notes, and amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, prescribed by
the Arkansas Supreme Court. The plain-English summary is original and written by us.
Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: necessary partyindispensable partycompulsory joinder Arkansasjoinder of required partiesARCP 19