Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in North Dakota

Background

“Joinder of indispensable and necessary parties is governed by Rule 19, N.D.R.Civ. P.” (See United Bank of Bismarck v. Trout (1992) 480 N.W.2d 742, 747.)

It states that “a person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action must be joined as a party in the action.” (See id.)

“Dismissal of an action for nonjoinder of a party is an extreme remedy which should only be granted where a party is truly indispensable.” (See Matter of Estate of Murphy (1996) 554 N.W.2d 432, 438.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Rule 19 deals with two classes of parties: necessary parties and indispensable parties.” (See United Bank of Bismarck v. Trout (1992) 480 N.W.2d 742, 747.)

“Under the rule, a necessary party is one in whose absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties.” (See id.)

“An indispensable party is essentially a necessary party who cannot be made a party. Rule 19(b) provides that an action can be dismissed if there is an indispensable party.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A trial court has broad discretion over the conduct of a trial, but it must exercise this discretion in a manner that best comports with substantial justice.” (See Praus v. Mack (2001) 626 N.W.2d 239, 244.)

“This court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to join parties under the abuse of discretion standard.” (See Murphy v. Murphy (1999) 595 N.W.2d 571, 580.)

“A court abuses its discretion only when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, when it misinterprets or misapplies the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination.” (See Kost v. Kraft (2014) 845 N.W.2d 889, 891.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “Rule 19(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. provides that such a ‘necessary’ party should be joined unless the party is not subject to service of process or joinder would defeat jurisdiction or venue.” (See Kouba v. Great Plains Pelleting, Inc. (1985) 372 N.W.2d 884, 887.)

It is also well settled that “Rule 19(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., makes it clear that a party is ‘indispensable’ only where the ability of the court to make an equitable adjudication in the absence of that party is seriously impaired and where joinder of that party cannot be obtained because of a jurisdictional or other limitation.” (See id.)