Current through January 1, 2025 · Last verified July 8, 2026
In one sentenceRule 19 requires a court to join a person as a party when feasible, if that person's absence would prevent complete relief or expose them or existing parties to inconsistent obligations, and directs the court to weigh equity and good-conscience factors when joinder isn't feasible.
(1)Required party. A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party if:
(A)in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
(B)that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may:
(i)as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or
(ii)leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.
(2)Joinder by court order. If a person has not been joined as required, the court shall order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.
(3)Venue. If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court shall dismiss that party.
(b)When joinder is not feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court shall determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:
(1)the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;
(2)the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:
(A)protective provisions in the judgment;
(B)shaping the relief; or
(C)other measures;
(3)whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and
(4)whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.
(c)Pleading the reasons for nonjoinder. When asserting a claim for relief, a party shall state:
(1)the name, if known, of any person who is required to be joined if feasible but is not joined; and
(2)the reasons for not joining that person.
(d)Exception for class actions. – This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 23.
Amendment History
The current West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure took effect January 1, 2025, as part of a rewrite that modernized the rules’ numbering and structure. West Virginia 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 January 1, 2025 update; for the underlying adopting order and any later amendments, see the West Virginia Judiciary’s compiled rules page.
Plain-English Summary
Some lawsuits can't be fully and finally resolved without every interested person in the room. Rule 19 identifies when that's true. A person has to be joined as a party, if it's practical to do so, when the court can't grant complete relief without them, or when that person has a claimed interest in the case and leaving them out could either hurt their own ability to protect that interest or leave an existing party facing double or inconsistent obligations.
If a required person hasn't been joined, the court orders that they be joined — and if a plaintiff refuses to join voluntarily, the court can make them a defendant or an involuntary plaintiff instead. If joining that person would break venue, the court dismisses that party rather than the whole action.
Sometimes joinder isn't possible — the person can't be found, or joining them would defeat jurisdiction. When that happens, the court has to decide, in equity and good conscience, whether the case can go on without them or has to be dismissed altogether. The rule lists what to weigh: how much prejudice a judgment would cause the absent person or the existing parties, whether that prejudice can be reduced by shaping the relief or adding protective terms, whether a judgment without the absent person would really settle things, and whether the plaintiff would have another adequate remedy if the case were dismissed.
Whenever a party knows a required person exists but hasn't been joined, the pleading has to say so and explain why.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes a person a "required party" under Rule 19?
Either the court can't grant complete relief among the existing parties without that person, or the person claims an interest in the case that could be damaged by their absence, or their absence could leave an existing party facing double or inconsistent obligations.
What happens if a required party won't join the lawsuit voluntarily?
If they refuse to join as a plaintiff, the court can make them a defendant instead, or in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.
What if a required party can't be joined at all?
The court decides, in equity and good conscience, whether the action should proceed without that person or be dismissed, weighing factors like potential prejudice, whether that prejudice can be reduced, and whether the plaintiff has another adequate remedy.
Does Rule 19 apply to class actions?
Not directly. Rule 19(d) makes clear that this rule is subject to Rule 23, which has its own joinder framework for class actions.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure (W. Va. R. Civ. P. 19). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 3). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 8, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:required joinderindispensable partynecessary partycompulsory joinder