(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
Chapter IV: Parties · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 20 lets multiple plaintiffs or defendants join in a single action whenever their claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and share a common question of law or fact, while giving the court power to order separate trials to prevent unfairness.
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.
[Amended February 20, 2004 to make rule gender neutral.]
Advisory Committee Notes
Rule 20(a) permits joinder in a single action of all persons asserting or defending against a joint, several or alternative right to relief that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and presents a common question of law or fact. The phrase “transaction or occurrence” requires that there be a distinct litigable event linking the parties. Rule 20(a) simply establishes a procedure under which several parties’ demands arising out of the same litigable event may be tried together, thereby avoiding the unnecessary loss of time and money to the court and the parties that the duplicate presentation of the evidence relating to facts common to more than one demand for relief would entail.
Joinder of parties under Rule 20(a) is not unlimited as is joinder of claims under Rule 18(a). Rule 20(a) imposes two specific requisites to the joinder of parties: (1) a right to relief must be asserted by or against each plaintiff or defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or the same series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all the parties will arise in the action. Both of these requirements must be satisfied in order to sustain party joinder under Rule 20(a). See American Bankers, Inc. of Florida v. Alexander, 818 So. 2d 1073, 1078 (Miss.
2001). However, even if the transaction requirement cannot be satisfied, there always is a possibility that, under the proper circumstances, separate actions can be instituted and then consolidated for trial under Rule 42(a) if there is a question of law or fact common to all the parties. See Stoner v. Colvin, 236 Miss. 736, 748, 110 So. 2d 920, 924 (1959) (courts of general jurisdiction have inherent power to consolidate actions when called for by the circumstances). If the criteria of Rule 20 are otherwise met, the court should consider whether different injuries, different damages, different defensive postures and other individualized factors will be so dissimilar as to make management of cases consolidated under Rule 20 impractical. See Demboski v. CSX Transp., Inc., 157 F.R.D. 28 (S.D. Miss. 1994) cited with approval in Illinois Cen. R.R. Co. v. Travis, 808 So. 2d 928, 934 (Miss. 2002).
In order to allow the court to make a prompt determination of whether joinder is proper, the factual basis for joinder should be fully disclosed as early as practicable, and motions questioning joinder should be filed, where possible, sufficiently early to avoid delays in the proceedings.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 20(a) opens the door to multi-party litigation. Plaintiffs may join together in one suit if they assert a right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative that arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and if some question of law or fact common to all of them will come up in the case. The same test applies to joining multiple defendants. Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant has to be interested in every form of relief sought in the case — the rule lets the court enter judgment for some plaintiffs and not others, and against some defendants and not others, based on each party's own rights and liabilities.
Rule 20 imposes two requirements together, not as alternatives: the claims have to relate to the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences, and the parties have to share a common question of law or fact. Both must be satisfied before parties can be joined under this rule. Even when the same-transaction test cannot be met, separate lawsuits sharing a common question can sometimes still be brought together for trial through consolidation.
Rule 20(b) recognizes that joining several parties in one case can create friction, so it gives the court broad authority to prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to needless expense because of a claim they have nothing to do with. The court can order separate trials or issue other orders to head off delay or prejudice, which lets the efficiency gained by joining related claims coexist with fairness to any party swept into a case where much of the dispute does not involve them at all.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can several plaintiffs sue a defendant together in one lawsuit under Rule 20?
Yes, if their claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and raise at least one common question of law or fact. Both conditions have to be met, not just one.
Does every plaintiff or defendant joined in a case have to want the same relief?
No. Rule 20(a) states that a plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded, and the court can enter judgment for or against individual parties according to their own rights and liabilities.
What can a court do if joining several parties in one case is unfair to one of them?
Rule 20(b) lets the court order separate trials, or make other orders, to prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to expense by a claim they have nothing to do with, and to prevent delay or prejudice more generally.
What if the parties' claims don't arise from the same transaction but still share a common question?
Rule 20 itself would not permit joinder in that situation, but separate actions can sometimes still be filed and later consolidated for trial when a common question of law or fact connects them.
Was Rule 20 recently changed?
Rule 20 was amended in February 2004 to make the rule's language gender neutral; the substantive joinder standards were not changed by that amendment.
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: permissive joinder of parties mississippisame transaction or occurrence rulejoining multiple plaintiffs or defendantsseparate trials to avoid prejudice mrcpcommon question of law or fact joinder