Rule 19.Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication
Part IV: Parties · Last amended January 1, 1987 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19 tells a court when it must bring a missing person into a lawsuit and when, if that person cannot be added, the case has to be dismissed instead.
(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 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. If the joined party objects to venue and his joinder would render the venue of the action improper, he shall be dismissed from the action.
(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 measure, 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)-(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
Amended effective Jan. 1, 1987.
Plain-English Summary
Some lawsuits cannot reach a sound result, or proceed at all, without a particular absent person at the table. Rule 19 requires the court to add that person as a party if it can — meaning the person is subject to service of process and adding them will not destroy the court's jurisdiction — whenever complete relief cannot be given to the parties already in the case without them, or the absent person has an interest in the case that would be practically impaired by proceeding without them, or leaving them out would expose an existing party to double or inconsistent obligations. If a person who should join as a plaintiff will not do so voluntarily, the court can make them a defendant, or in the right circumstances an involuntary plaintiff. A joined party who objects that their addition ruins proper venue gets dismissed from the case instead.
Sometimes the missing person cannot be joined at all — they may be beyond the court's reach or their addition would destroy jurisdiction. When that happens, Rule 19(b) requires the court to weigh whether the case can go forward without them in equity and good conscience, or whether the absent person is so central to the dispute that the case must be dismissed. The court weighs how much a judgment might prejudice the absent person or the existing parties, whether that prejudice can be softened by shaping the relief or adding protective conditions, whether a judgment issued without the absent person would settle anything, and whether the plaintiff would have another adequate remedy if the case gets dismissed. Any complaint or other claim for relief must name known persons who fit this description but were not joined, and explain why. Class actions follow their own joinder rules under Rule 23 rather than this one.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes someone a "necessary party" under Rule 19?
Someone whose absence would either prevent the court from giving complete relief to the existing parties, or who has a stake in the dispute that would be practically hurt by a judgment made without them, or whose absence would leave an existing party facing double or conflicting obligations over the same claim.
What happens if a necessary party can't be joined — say, they're outside the court's jurisdiction?
The court has to decide, in equity and good conscience, whether the case can proceed without that person or whether it must be dismissed because that person is indispensable to a fair resolution.
What factors does the court weigh in deciding whether to proceed without an absent party?
Four things: how much a judgment might prejudice the absent person or the parties already in the case; whether that prejudice can be reduced by shaping the relief or adding protective terms; whether a judgment made without the absent person would be adequate; and whether the plaintiff would have another adequate remedy if the case were dismissed instead.
Does a complaint have to say anything about people who aren't joined?
Yes. If the pleader knows of a person who fits Rule 19's description of a party that should be joined, the pleading must name them and explain why they were left out.
Does this rule apply to class actions?
No. Rule 19(d) makes clear that class actions are governed by Rule 23's own joinder framework instead.
Source & verification. Rule text, Advisory Committee Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Utah Supreme Court. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:necessary partyindispensable partyjoinder of persons needed for just adjudicationparty cannot be joinedcompulsory joinder utah