A plaintiff must join as parties to the action all persons whose interests are so directly involved that the court cannot render a fair adjudication in their absence. (Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018)) ¶¶ 2:151 & 2:156. A party is indispensable where the plaintiff seeks a type of affirmative relief that, if granted would affect the interest of a third person not joined. (Sierra Club, Inc. v. Cal. Coastal Comm. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 495, 501.)

How to Structure the Motion

A motion for joinder has been interpreted to cover both “necessary” parties and “indispensable” ones. (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758.)

Indispensability is determined by considering the parties’ status when relief is to be entered or when the issue of indispensability is raised. (County of Imperial v. Super. Ct. (State Water Resources Control Bd.) (2007) 152 CA4th 13, 36.) “The controlling test for determining whether a person is an indispensable party is, ‘Where the plaintiff seeks some type of affirmative relief which, if granted, would injure or affect the interest of a third person not joined, that third person is an indispensable party.’” (Save Our Bay, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (1996) 42 Cal.4th 686, 692.)

The Court’s Decision

Joinder of “necessary” parties may be ordered pursuant to “trial court discretion in which the court weighs factors of practical realities and other considerations.” (Id.; Hayes v. State Dept. of Developmental Services (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1523, 1529.)

Necessary parties should normally be joined in an action and the court will usually require them to be joined in order to carry out policy of complete determination and avoidance of multiplicity of suits, but the rule being one of equity is limited by considerations of fairness, convenience and practicability, and if it is impossible to find the necessary parties or impracticable to bring them in, the action may proceed as to those who are present. (Bank of Cal. Nat. Ass’n v. Super. Ct. in and for City and County of San Francisco (1940) 16 Cal.2d 516.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 389 governs compulsory joinder, stating that a plaintiff is required to join as parties to the action any person whose interest is such that any judgment rendered in his or her absence might either:

1. prejudice his or her ability to protect his or her interest in later litigation; or
2. leave any of the parties before the court exposed to a risk of additional liability or inconsistent obligations.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 389(a); Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 785, 796; Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 808-809; Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.4th 438, 460-464.)

If any such persons are not named as parties to the lawsuit, the complaint must state their names (if known), and the reasons why they have not been joined. (Code Civ. Proc., § 389(c).)

The court’s decision on whether the action should proceed without the absent party will be based on the following factors:

1. The extent to which its judgment may prejudice the absent party or the parties already before the court;
2. The extent to which such prejudice may be lessened or avoided by protective provisions in the judgment, or other measures;
3. Whether a judgment rendered in such person’s absence will provide an adequate remedy to the parties before the court; and
4. Whether, if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder, the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy elsewhere.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 389(b); Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrig. Dist. (2001) 94 Cal.4th 1092, 1106-1108; Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 808.)

The court has substantial discretion in considering and weighing the above factors. (Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.4th 438, 461.) No one factor is determinative or more important than another. (Dreamweaver Andalusians, LLC v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America (2015) 234 Cal.4th 1168, 1176-1177.)