Rule 19.Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication.
Current through February 2024 · Last verified July 8, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19 requires a court to bring in any person whose absence would prevent complete relief, threaten that person's own interests, or expose existing parties to double or inconsistent obligations, and if that person cannot be joined, directs the court to weigh several factors in deciding whether to proceed without them or dismiss the case.
(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 the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties; or
(2)The person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the 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 the person's claimed interest.
If the person should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, the person may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. If the joined party objects to venue and joinder of that party would render the venue of the action improper, that party shall be dismissed from the action.
(b)Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not Feasible. If a person as described in subdivision (a)(1) and (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: 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; and 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) and (2) hereof who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
(d)Exception of Class Actions. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 23.
Amendment History
Rhode Island does not publish a per-rule amendment history inside the compiled rules text reproduced here. The text above is verified current through the source’s own February 2024 printing; for the underlying adopting orders and any later amendments, see the Rhode Island Judiciary’s compiled rules page.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 19 identifies people who need to be part of a lawsuit for it to be resolved properly. Anyone who can be served with process must be joined if complete relief cannot be worked out among the existing parties without them, or if that person claims an interest in the case and leaving them out would either hurt their ability to protect that interest or expose the current parties to a real risk of facing double, multiple, or conflicting obligations because of that person’s claim. Someone who should be a plaintiff but will not join voluntarily can be made a defendant, or in the right case, an involuntary plaintiff. If a person is joined but objects that doing so destroys venue for the case, that person is dismissed rather than the case being derailed.
Sometimes the person who needs to be there cannot be brought into the case. When that happens, the court has to decide, in equity and good conscience, whether the case can go forward without them or has to be dismissed — treating the absent person as indispensable. Four factors guide that call: how much a judgment issued without the person would prejudice that person or the existing parties; whether shaping the relief or adding protective conditions could ease that prejudice; whether a judgment reached without the person would settle the dispute adequately; and whether the plaintiff would have any adequate remedy left if the case were dismissed.
Anyone filing a claim also has to tell the court, by name if known, about people who fit this description but were not joined, and explain why. And this entire rule steps aside for class actions, which are governed by Rule 23 instead.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes someone a person who must be joined under Rule 19?
Someone who can be served with process must be joined if the case cannot give complete relief to the existing parties without them, or if that person claims an interest in the dispute that could be harmed by proceeding without them, or that could leave the existing parties facing double or inconsistent obligations.
What happens if a required party cannot be brought into the case?
The court has to weigh whether the case can proceed without that person or must be dismissed, treating the absent person as indispensable. It looks at potential prejudice to the absent person and the parties, whether the judgment can be shaped to reduce that prejudice, whether a judgment without the person would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff would have another remedy if the case were dismissed.
Do I have to disclose people I chose not to sue?
Yes. If a person fits Rule 19's description of someone who should be joined but was not, the pleading has to name them, if known, and explain why they were left out.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure (R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 19). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-6-2). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 8, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:necessary partiesindispensable partiesrequired joinder of partieswho must be joined in a lawsuitinvoluntary plaintiffmissing party dismissaljoinder needed for just adjudication