A necessary party is one without whom “complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties” and/or whose absence would “leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of [the non-party’s] claimed interest.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 389(a); Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 808-809.)

The Court may dismiss a case for failure to join indispensable and/or necessary parties on its own motion. (Solomon v. Redona (1921) 52 Cal.App. 300.)

Legal Standard

Section 389 of the California Code of Civil Procedure governs joinder of parties, and there are two types of parties that may be joined: “necessary” and “indispensable.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 389; In re Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758.) A determination that a party is necessary is the predicate for a determination of whether the party is indispensable. (Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1100.)

“Indispensable” parties must be joined (in the absence of such party, a court lacks jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed), whereas joinder of “necessary” parties may be ordered pursuant to “trial court discretion in which the court weighs factors of practical realities and other considerations.” (In re Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758; Hayes v. State Dept. of Developmental Services (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1523, 1529; Galdje v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1343.)

“Whether a party is necessary and/or indispensable is a matter of trial court discretion in which the court weighs factors of practical realities and other considerations.” (Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrig. Dist., supra, 94 Cal.4th at 1105, 115.) In determining whether a party is indispensable or necessary, 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 him 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 or cross-complainant will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for non-joinder.

(Code of Civ. Proc., § 389(b); Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrig. Dist. (2001) 94 Cal.4th 1092, 1106-1108.)

In considering the four factors, “potential prejudice to [an] unjoined person is of critical importance.” (Simonelli v. City of Carmel (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 380, 485.) However, the judge is left with substantial discretion in considering which factors to weigh and how heavily to emphasize certain considerations in deciding whether the action should go forward in the absence of someone needed for a complete adjudication of the dispute; these factors are not arranged in a hierarchical order, and no factor is determinative or necessarily more important than another. (Dreamweaver Andalusians, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Company of America (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1168.)

Failure to Join

“Failure to join an ‘indispensable party’ is not ‘a jurisdictional defect’ in the fundamental sense; even in the absence of an ‘indispensable’ party, the court still has the power to render a decision as to the parties before it which will stand. It is for reasons of equity and convenience, and not because it is without power to proceed, that the court should not proceed with a case where it determines that an ‘indispensable’ party is absent and cannot be joined.” (Sierra Club, Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 495, 500 [157 Cal. Rptr. 190].)