(a) Persons to Be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action 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.
Rule 19.Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication
Group IV: Parties · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19 requires a person to be joined as a party when their absence would prevent complete relief or risk prejudicing their own interests or the interests of existing parties, and directs the court to weigh set factors when that joinder isn't feasible and decide whether the case can proceed without them.
Full Text of Rule 19
(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not Feasible. If a person as described in subdivision (a)(1)-(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 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. Any pleading asserting a cause of action for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) hereof who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
Notes
Note: This Rule 19(a) is the same as the Federal Rule. The principle behind this Rule is that whenever possible persons materially interested in the action should be joined so that they may be heard and a complete determination had. When this joinder is not possible, the case should be examined pragmatically and a choice made between proceeding without the particular interested party or dismissing the action. Dean Lightsey, in Code Pleading, notes that the number of cases in which there is truly an "indispensable party" in whose absence the court should not proceed are very rare. Id. at 109-110. The Rule provides for joining such a party as a defendant or involuntary plaintiff similar to Code § 15-5-40. Case law interpreting the Federal Rule makes it clear that the absence of a party does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction to resolve the interests of the parties before it. This changes some older state precedents which have held that such defects were jurisdictional. SeeGreen v. Niver, 43 S.C. 359, 21 S.E. 263 (1894); Gooch v. Elliott, 120 S.C. 245, 113 S.E. 72 (1922).
Note: When a party described in Rule 19(a) cannot be joined, the court must decide whether to proceed with the case in that party's absence. This Rule 19(b) provides the practical factors for the court to consider in reaching its determination, and are not meant to be exclusive. Only if pragmatic considerations strongly indicate that it would be preferable to dismiss the action rather than proceed with the parties before it, should the court conclude that the absent party is truly "indispensable." Under Rule 12(h)(1) the lack of an "indispensable" party in this sense can be raised as late as the trial on the merits. However, if the purpose of the motion is to protect the movant from an apparently unfavorable situation, rather than to protect the absent party, the court may properly consider delay in making the motion as a reason against dismissing the action.
Note: This Rule 19(c) is substantially the same as the Federal Rule. Rule 19(d) simply refers to Rule 23 for joinders in class actions.
Plain-English Summary
Some cases can't be resolved without a particular person at the table. Rule 19(a) identifies who that person is: someone subject to the court's process whose joinder wouldn't destroy subject-matter jurisdiction, and who either must be present for the court to grant complete relief among the parties already in the case, or who claims an interest in the subject of the suit that could be practically impaired by a judgment reached without them, or that would leave existing parties exposed to double or inconsistent obligations. When such a person exists and hasn't been joined, the court orders that they be added. If they belong on the plaintiff's side but won't join voluntarily, the rule lets the court make them a defendant, or in the right circumstances, an involuntary plaintiff.
Sometimes that person can't be brought into the case, whether because they're outside the court's reach or joining them would destroy jurisdiction. Rule 19(b) tells the court how to handle that gap. It must decide, in equity and good conscience, whether to proceed with the parties already before it or to dismiss the action, treating the absent person as indispensable. The rule lists four factors guiding that call: how prejudicial a judgment might be to the absent person or the existing parties, whether protective measures in the judgment could lessen that prejudice, whether a judgment without the absent person would still be adequate, and whether the plaintiff would have any adequate remedy left if the court dismissed the case instead.
Rule 19(c) requires a plaintiff to name, if known, anyone who fits Rule 19(a)'s description but hasn't been joined, and to explain why. That transparency lets the court and other parties evaluate early on whether someone important is missing from the case. Rule 19(d) notes that class actions follow Rule 23's separate joinder framework instead of this rule's general approach.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who must be joined as a party under Rule 19?
A person subject to the court's process, whose joinder won't destroy subject-matter jurisdiction, must be joined if complete relief can't be given without them, or if they claim an interest in the case that could be impaired by proceeding without them, or that would expose existing parties to double or inconsistent obligations.
What happens if someone who should be joined refuses to become a plaintiff?
Rule 19(a) lets the court make that person a defendant instead, or in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.
What does the court do when a necessary person can't be joined?
Rule 19(b) requires the court to decide, in equity and good conscience, whether the action should proceed among the existing parties or be dismissed with the absent person treated as indispensable, weighing prejudice, whether that prejudice can be reduced, the adequacy of a judgment without that person, and whether the plaintiff would have another remedy if the case were dismissed.
Does a lawsuit have to identify people who should have been joined but weren't?
Yes. Rule 19(c) requires the pleading to name any such persons known to the pleader and explain why they haven't been joined.
Does Rule 19 apply to class actions?
No. Rule 19(d) states that class actions are governed instead by Rule 23's joinder provisions.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Notes, and amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: necessary partiesindispensable partiescompulsory joinderjoinder required for complete relief