Motion for Joinder (of Necessary Parties) in Washington

Background

“CR 19(a)(2)(A) requires joinder when a person claims an interest in the subject matter of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may impede his ability to protect that interest.” (See Coastal Building v. Seattle (1992) 65 Wn. App. 1, 5.)

“It also requires joinder of those whose absence subjects an existing party to a substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations.” (See Reitz v. Knight (1991) 62 Wn. App. 575, 585.)

“Ultimately, the court is obligated to join only entities that could be prejudiced one way or another by the decision.” (See Wimberly v. Caravello (2006) 136 Wn. App. 327, 334 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“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 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 (A) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (B) 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.”

(See Coastal Building v. Seattle (1992) 65 Wn. App. 1, 5 n.4.)

“If he has not been so 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. If the joined party objects to venue and his joinder would render the venue of the action improper, he shall be dismissed from the action." (See id.)

"In determining whether a person is an indispensable party under CR 19, [and therefore must be joined] the following factors must be weighed:

1. the extent to which a judgment rendered in the absence of the person seeking intervention might be prejudicial to that person or those already parties;
2. if there is prejudice, the extent to which prejudice can be lessened or avoided by protective provisions in the judgment or by other measures;
3. whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate; and
4. whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.”

(See Gildon v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc. (2006) 158 Wn.2d 483, 495, 145 P.3d 1196; Burt v. Dept. of Corrections (2010) 168 Wn. 2d 828, 841-42.)

“These factors must be carefully analyzed because the question of whether a party is necessary under CR 19 calls for determinations that are heavily influenced by the facts and circumstances of individual cases.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Under CR 19(a), a trial court must determine which parties are ‘necessary’ for a just adjudication.” (See Coastal Bldg. Corp. v. City of Seattle (1992) 65 Wn. App. 1, 5, 828 P.2d 7; Foxview Homeowners Asso. v. Fenberg (2010) 155 Wn. App. 1025.)

“A party is necessary if that party's absence would prevent the trial court from affording complete relief to existing parties to the action or if the party's absence would either impair that party's interest or subject any existing party to inconsistent or multiple liability." (See id.)

“If a necessary party is absent, the trial court must determine whether joinder is feasible. CR 19(a). If a necessary party cannot be joined, the trial court must decide whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable." (See Foxview Homeowners Asso. v. Fenberg (2010) 155 Wn. App. 1025.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that CR 19 provides for "[j]oinder of persons needed for just adjudication. Subsection (a) of that rule indicates that joinder is required if in the absence of the person seeking to join complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties.” (See Burt v. Dept. of Corrections (2010) 168 Wn. 2d 828, 841.)

It is also well settled that “if feasible, the court must join a party in order to give complete relief to the existing parties, to protect a person's interest who is not a party in the action, or to spare the existing parties the risk of increased or inconsistent obligations.” (See Wimberly v. Caravello (2006) 136 Wn. App. 327, 334.)