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.)
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:
(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 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].)
Sep 06, 2028
Butte County, CA
Sep 06, 2028
Butte County, CA
Oct 15, 2025
Merced County, CA
Oct 15, 2025
Merced County, CA
Apr 30, 2025
Merced County, CA
Apr 30, 2025
Merced County, CA
May 16, 2024
Merced County, CA
May 16, 2024
Merced County, CA
May 16, 2024
Merced County, CA
Nov 15, 2023
Butte County, CA
Jul 17, 2023
Kern County, CA
Jul 17, 2023
Kern County, CA
Jul 17, 2023
Kern County, CA
Jun 28, 2023
Butte County, CA
May 24, 2023
Butte County, CA
May 24, 2023
Butte County, CA
May 10, 2023
Butte County, CA
May 10, 2023
Butte County, CA
May 03, 2023
Merced County, CA
Apr 19, 2023
Butte County, CA
Apr 06, 2023
Merced County, CA
Apr 06, 2023
Merced County, CA
Mar 29, 2023
Merced County, CA
Mar 29, 2023
Merced County, CA
Mar 08, 2023
Merced County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.