Rule 19.Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication
Chapter IV: Parties · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19 requires a court to join any person whose absence would prevent complete relief among the existing parties or would expose them to double, multiple, or inconsistent obligations, and if that person cannot be joined, directs the court to weigh four factors in deciding whether the case can proceed without them or must instead be dismissed.
(a)Persons to Be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court 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 so 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.
(b)Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not Feasible. If a person as described in subdivision (a) 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 him 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) through (2) who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
Advisory Committee Notes
Compulsory joinder is an exception to the general practice of giving the plaintiff the right to decide who shall be parties to a law suit; although a court must take cognizance of this traditional prerogative in exercising its discretion under Rule 19, plaintiff’s choice will have to be compromised when significant countervailing considerations make the joinder of particular absentees desirable.
There are at least four main questions to be considered under Rule 19: first, the plaintiff’s interest in having a forum; second, the defendant’s wish to avoid multiple litigation, inconsistent relief, or sole responsibility for a liability shared with another; third, the interest of an outsider whom it would have been desirable to join; fourth, the interest of the courts and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies. This list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive; pragmatism controls.
There is no precise formula for determining whether a particular nonparty must be joined under Rule 19(b). The decision has to be made in terms of the general policies of avoiding multiple litigation, providing the parties with complete and effective relief in a single action, and protecting the absent persons from the possible prejudicial effect of deciding the case without them. Account also must be taken of whether other alternatives are available to the litigants. By its very nature Rule 19(b) calls for determinations that are heavily influenced by the facts and circumstances of individual cases.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 19 answers a question every lawsuit eventually faces: who has to be in the case for the judgment to mean anything? Rule 19(a) sets out two separate triggers. First, a person must be joined if, without them, the court cannot give complete relief to the people already in the case. Second, a person must be joined if they claim an interest in the subject of the suit and deciding the case without them would either make it harder for them to protect that interest or leave the existing parties facing a real risk of double, multiple, or inconsistent obligations because of that outstanding claim. If someone who fits this description ought to be a plaintiff but will not join voluntarily, the rule allows the court to make that person a defendant instead, or in the right case, an involuntary plaintiff.
Sometimes the person who needs to be joined cannot be brought into the case at all, often because the court lacks jurisdiction over them. Rule 19(b) tells the court what to do next: decide, in equity and good conscience, whether the action should go forward without that person or should be dismissed, treating the absent person as indispensable if dismissal is required. The rule lists four things the court has to weigh: how much a judgment reached without the absent person might prejudice that person or the parties already in the case; how far protective terms in the judgment or other measures could reduce that prejudice; whether a judgment reached without the absent person would settle the dispute in a meaningful way; and whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy left if the court dismissed the case for nonjoinder. None of these factors is decisive on its own — the court weighs them together against the facts of the particular case.
Rule 19(c) adds a disclosure duty. When a pleader knows of a person described in Rule 19(a) who has not been joined, the pleading must name that person and explain why they were left out. That requirement keeps the joinder question visible to the court and the other parties from the start, rather than surfacing only after discovery or trial has begun.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for a person to be "indispensable" under Rule 19?
It means the person fits the description in Rule 19(a) — their absence would prevent complete relief or expose the existing parties to a real risk of double or inconsistent obligations — but they cannot be joined, usually because the court cannot get jurisdiction over them. Rule 19(b) then requires the court to decide, in equity and good conscience, whether the case can still go forward or must be dismissed with that person treated as indispensable.
Can a lawsuit go forward if someone who should be a party cannot be brought into the case?
It depends on the four factors in Rule 19(b): the potential prejudice to the absent person or the existing parties, whether that prejudice can be lessened through protective measures or how the relief is shaped, whether a judgment reached without the absent person would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff would still have an adequate remedy if the case were dismissed instead.
What happens if a person who should be a plaintiff refuses to join the case voluntarily?
Rule 19(a) allows the court to make that person a defendant, or in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff, rather than letting their refusal to join block the case from moving forward.
Do I have to tell the court about people I chose not to join as parties?
Yes, if they fit the description in Rule 19(a)(1) or (a)(2). Rule 19(c) requires the pleading to name any such person known to the pleader who was not joined and to explain the reasons for leaving them out.
Why does Rule 19 sometimes override the plaintiff's choice of who to sue?
Ordinarily a plaintiff decides who to bring into a lawsuit. Rule 19 recognizes that this choice sometimes has to give way when a court, an absent person, or the existing parties would otherwise be left with an incomplete or unfair resolution — the rule requires the court to weigh those competing interests rather than defer automatically to the plaintiff's original choice of defendants.
Source & verification. Rule text and Advisory Committee Notes are
reproduced verbatim from the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Mississippi. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:mississippi compulsory joinder ruleindispensable party mississippi lawsuitnecessary party not joined mrcpjoinder if feasible mississippi civil procedureequity and good conscience joinder test