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 presented separately.
Rule 21.Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties
Last amended May 1, 2000 · Last verified July 8, 2026
In one sentenceRule 21 makes clear that adding or dropping the wrong parties is never, by itself, grounds to dismiss a lawsuit — the court can add or drop parties on motion or its own initiative at any stage of the case, and can sever any claim against a party for separate treatment.
Full Text of Rule 21
Advisory Committee’s Notes & Reporter’s Notes
Advisory Committee’s Notes — May 1, 2000
The substitution of “presented” for “proceeded with” merely corrects awkward language and no change in substance is intended.
Reporter's Notes — December 1, 1959
This rule is the same as Federal Rule 21. It does not greatly affect Maine law. Plaintiffs may be added or stricken by amendment of the writ. R.S.1954, Chap. 113, Sec. 12 (repealed in 1959). Defendants may similarly be stricken by amendment and, in actions of contract express or implied, added by amendment. R.S.1954, Chap. 113, Sec. 14 (repealed in 1959). In equity also misjoinder of plaintiffs is harmless, Brown v. Lawton, 87 Me. 83, 32 A. 733 (1894), and nonjoinder of plaintiffs may be cured by amendment. Hussey, v. Dole, 24 Me. 20 (1844). Similarly misjoinder of defendants in equity is not a ground for dismissal of the bill. See Kennebec etc. Ry. v. Portland etc. Ry., 54 Me. 173 (1866). N onjoinder may usually be cured by amendment of the bill. See Beals v. Cobb, 51 Me. 348 (1863).
The rule must be read in conjunction with Rules 18 and 19. It is not a general authorization for adding parties.
Since the demurrer and the plea in abatement have been abolished, defects in joinder of parties will be raised by the responsive pleading, or, if a failure to join an indispensable party, by motion under Rule 12(b) (7).
Plain-English Summary
Getting the party list wrong used to be fatal to a case at common law; Rule 21 removes that trap. Misjoinder of parties — naming someone who should not be in the suit — is not a ground for dismissal. The court can drop or add parties at any stage, on its own initiative or on any party’s motion, on whatever terms are just, and can sever a claim against a particular party to be handled separately from the rest of the case.
The rule works alongside Rules 18 and 19 rather than replacing them: it is not an independent license to add new parties whenever convenient, only a tool for correcting who is or is not properly part of an already-framed lawsuit. A genuine failure to join an indispensable party is still raised through a motion under Rule 12(b)(7), not cured by invoking Rule 21.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a lawsuit be dismissed just because the wrong parties were named?
No. Rule 21 states directly that misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action.
Who can ask the court to add or drop a party under Rule 21?
Any party may move for it, or the court may do so on its own initiative, at any stage of the action and on whatever terms are just.
Does Rule 21 let a party bring in new claims or defendants whenever it wants?
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee’s Notes / Reporter’s
Notes are reproduced verbatim from the official Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (Me. R. Civ. P. 21), prescribed by the
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (4 M.R.S. § 8, the Rules Enabling Act). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 8, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: misjoinder of partiesadding or dropping partiessevering a claim