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 that person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition in that person's absence may (a) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or (b) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of their claimed interest. If such person has not been so joined, the court shall order that such person be made a party. If a person should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, such person shall be made a defendant, the reason being stated in the complaint.
Rule 29.Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication
Current through June 1, 2026 · Last verified July 11, 2026
In one sentenceRule 29 requires a court to bring in a person whose absence would prevent complete relief or put that person’s own interests at risk, and tells the court how to decide whether to proceed without that person or dismiss the case when joining them is not possible.
Full Text of Rule 29
B. DETERMINATION BY COURT WHENEVER JOINDER NOT FEASIBLE If a person as described in subsections A.(1) and (2) of this rule 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 the person 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.
Amendment History
[CCP 12/2/78; amended by 1979 c.284 § 20]
Plain-English Summary
Rule 29A identifies people who need to be part of a lawsuit for the case to be resolved properly. If a person is subject to service of process, the court must join that person when either of two things is true: complete relief cannot be given to the parties already in the case without that person, or the person claims an interest in the subject of the lawsuit and leaving that person out could, as a practical matter, hurt the person’s ability to protect that interest, or expose the parties already in the case to a real risk of double, multiple, or inconsistent obligations because of the absent person’s claimed interest. When a court identifies someone who fits, it orders that person joined. If the right role for that person is plaintiff but the person will not agree to it, Rule 29A lets the court make that person a defendant instead, with the complaint stating why.
Rule 29B addresses the harder case: what happens when a person who should be joined under Section A cannot be brought into the case at all. Rather than an automatic result, the rule asks the court to weigh four factors: how much a judgment issued without that person might prejudice the absent person or the existing parties; how far the court can lessen or avoid that prejudice by shaping the relief or adding protective terms to the judgment; whether a judgment issued without the person would be adequate; and whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy if the court dismisses the case for failing to join the person. If those factors favor dismissal, the absent person is treated as indispensable and the case does not proceed.
Rule 29C makes this entire rule give way to Rule 32 in a class action, where that rule’s own structure for representing absent class members controls instead.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes a person someone the court must join to a case, rather than someone the court has discretion to add?
Rule 29A requires joinder of a person subject to service of process if complete relief cannot be given without them, or if the person claims an interest in the case and their absence could impair their ability to protect that interest or expose existing parties to inconsistent obligations.
What happens if a necessary person cannot be brought into the lawsuit at all?
Rule 29B directs the court to weigh several factors — including potential prejudice to the absent person or existing parties, whether that prejudice can be lessened, whether a judgment without the person would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff has another adequate remedy — to decide whether the case should proceed without the person or be dismissed with that person treated as indispensable.
Can a court make someone a defendant if that person should have joined as a plaintiff instead?
Yes. Rule 29A allows the court to make a person a defendant, with the reason stated in the complaint, if that person should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so.
Does Rule 29 apply to class actions?
Not on its own terms. Rule 29C makes the rule subject to Rule 32, which governs class actions separately.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP 29). Prescribed by the Council on Court Procedures (ORS 1.735), subject to amendment, repeal, or supplementation by the Oregon Legislative Assembly. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 11, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: necessary party in an Oregon lawsuitwhen is a party considered indispensablecourt forces someone to join a lawsuitcase dismissed because a required party could not be joinedwhat happens if a required party cannot be served