Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Arkansas

Background

“Rule 21 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part: ‘Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and upon such terms as are just.’” (Arnold v. Spears (2001) 343 Ark. 517, 524-25 [explaining “[t]hat is precisely what was done in this case.”])

General Information for Complaints and Motions

The Arkansas Supreme Court has also “recognized the need for mandated joinder of indispensable and necessary parties by the trial court under appropriate circumstances.” (Arnold, supra, 343 Ark. at 525 citing, e.g., Arkansas State Med. Bd. v. Bolding (1996) 324 Ark. 238.)

Ark.R.Civ.P Rule 19(a) concerns persons to be joined if feasible and provides in relevant part that:

“A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if and provides in pertinent part as follows: A person who is subject to service of process 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
1. as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, or,
2. 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.”

(Ark. Iron Metal v. 1st Nat'l Bank of Rogers (1985) 16 Ark. App. 245, 249 quoting Ark.R.Civ.P Rule 19(a).)

Further...

“If he has not been 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.”

(Ark. Iron Metal v. 1st Nat'l Bank of Rogers (1985) 16 Ark. App. 245, 249 quoting Ark.R.Civ.P Rule 19(a).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

The standard of review for judgments concerning joinder is the abuse of discretion standard. (See, e.g., Stephens Prod. Co. v. Bennett, 2015 Ark. App. 416, 1 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (holding “[T]he court's dismissal on the basis of failure to name necessary parties was an abuse of discretion because there were no necessary parties, and even if there were, appellant should have been given the opportunity to make them parties....”)

The Court’s Decision

“By the language of the rule, when a plaintiff fails to join an indispensable party, the trial court should order that the indispensable party be joined.” (Brown v. Towell (2021) 619 S.W.3d 17, 25 citing Morgan v. Turner, 2010 Ark. 245, 14.) “Only when the court determines that joinder is not feasible should the court consider dismissing the action.” (Id.)

“Officials who are charged with enforcing a statute, rule, or order that is being challenged, or whose presence is needed to afford complete relief to the parties, are necessary parties.” (Pulaski County v. Jacuzzi Brothers Div. (1994) 317 Ark. 10; citing 7 Wright, Miller Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil, 1617 [1986]; 26 Fed. Proc., L.Ed., 59:116, 117; IBM Credit Corp. v. Pulaski County (1994) 316 Ark. 580.)