(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 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 has not been so joined, the court shall order that the person be made a party. 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 the person’s joinder would render the venue of the action improper, the joined party shall be dismissed from the action.
Rule 19.Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication
Group 4: Parties · Last amended April 28, 2015 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19 requires courts to bring in any person needed for a complete and fair judgment when that person can be served with process and won't destroy the court's jurisdiction, and tells the court how to weigh things when that person can't be joined.
Full Text of Rule 19
(b) Determination by court whenever joinder not feasible. If a person joinable under (1) or (2) of section (a) 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: (1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties; (2) 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; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; (4) 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 joinable under (1) or (2) of section (a) hereof who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
(e) Spouse or Domestic Partner must join — Exceptions. [Reserved. See RCW 4.08.030.]
Amendment History
Prior: RPPP Rule 19. Adopted May 5, 1967, effective July 1, 1967; amended, adopted May 7, 1980, effective July 1, 1980; amended, effective April 28, 2015.
Plain-English Summary
Some lawsuits can't be decided without everyone whose rights are at stake in the room. Rule 19 identifies those people and forces the issue. A person belongs in the case if leaving them out means the court can't give complete relief to the parties already there, or if that person has a stake in the outcome that would be hurt by a judgment made without them, or that would leave the existing parties open to double or conflicting obligations later. If the court finds someone fits that description and can be served without wrecking its jurisdiction, it orders that person joined.
A person who should be a plaintiff but won't join voluntarily doesn't get to block the case. The court can align them as a defendant instead, or, in the right circumstances, as an involuntary plaintiff. And if adding that person would make venue improper, the rule cuts the other way: the joined party gets dismissed rather than forcing the whole case to move.
Sometimes the missing person can't be brought in — maybe they can't be served, maybe joining them would strip the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 19(b) then asks the court to weigh four things: how much a judgment without that person would prejudice anyone, whether the judgment's terms can be shaped to reduce that harm, whether a judgment made without the absent person would mean anything, and whether the plaintiff has anywhere else to go if the case is dismissed. If those factors point toward unfairness, the court dismisses the action instead of proceeding without an indispensable party.
Rule 19(c) requires plaintiffs to name, in the complaint itself, anyone who fits Rule 19(a) but hasn't been joined, and to explain why. The rule yields to Rule 23 in class actions, and it leaves questions about joining spouses or domestic partners to the statute that governs that topic.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for a person to be 'necessary' under Rule 19?
It means the case can't produce complete relief without them, or they have a real interest in the outcome that a judgment made in their absence would threaten — either by hurting their own ability to protect that interest or by exposing the existing parties to inconsistent or duplicate obligations.
Can someone who refuses to join a lawsuit be forced into it anyway?
Yes. If a person should be a plaintiff but won't join, the court can name them a defendant, or, where appropriate, an involuntary plaintiff, rather than let their refusal control who's in the case.
What happens if a necessary person can't be joined?
The court decides, under Rule 19(b), whether the case can go forward without that person or should be dismissed instead. It weighs the risk of prejudice, whether the judgment can be shaped to limit that risk, whether a judgment without that person would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff has another adequate remedy.
What happens if joining a necessary party ruins venue?
The rule protects venue over joinder in that situation — the joined party is dismissed from the action rather than the case being forced into an improper venue.
Does a plaintiff have to explain why someone wasn't joined?
Yes. Rule 19(c) requires the complaint to name any person who fits Rule 19(a) but isn't joined, along with the reasons for leaving them out.
Does Rule 19 apply to class actions?
No. Rule 19(d) makes the rule subject to Rule 23, which has its own framework for who counts as a party in a class action.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Washington Superior Court Civil Rules, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Washington. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: necessary partiesindispensable partiesjoinder required for just adjudicationcompulsory joinder washingtoninvoluntary plaintiff rule