Ariz. R. Civ. P. 19

As amended through August 22, 2024

Rule 19 - Required Joinder of Parties

(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.

(1)A Person Required to Be Made a Party. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:

(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or

(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:

(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or

(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

(2)Joinder by Court Order. If a person required to be made a party has not been joined, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.

(3)Venue. If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court must dismiss that party.

(b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:

(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;

(2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:

(A) protective provisions in the judgment;

(B) shaping the relief; or

(C) other measures;

(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and

(4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

(c) Pleading the Reasons for Nonjoinder. When asserting a claim for relief, a party must state:

(1) the name, if known, of any person required to be joined if feasible who is not joined; and

(2) the reasons for not joining that person.

(d) Exception of Class Actions. This rule is subject to Rule 23.

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 19

Amended effective 1/1/2017.

State Bar Committee Note

1966 Amendment to Rule 19

The present rule, with its judicial gloss in terms of indispensable, necessary, and proper parties, has proved confusing and difficult to apply. The revision seeks to substitute practical procedures to deal with problems where otherwise desirable joinder is difficult. At the same time, it retains the basic principle that parties must be joined where this is required by "equity and good conscience." Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. 130, 17 How. 130, 15 L. Ed. 158 (1854); Bolin v. Superior Ct., 85 Ariz. 131, 333 P.2d 295 (1958); Smith v. Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 386 P.2d 649 (1963); State of Washington v. United States, 87 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1936).

The description is not at variance with the settled authorities holding that a tortfeasor with the usual "joint-and-several" liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability. Joinder of these tortfeasors continues to be regulated by Rule 20; compare Rule 14 on third-party practice.

If a person as described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) is amenable to service of process and his joinder would not deprive the court of jurisdiction in the sense of competence over the action, he should be joined as a party; and if he has not been joined, the court should order him to be brought into the action. If a party joined has a valid objection to the venue and chooses to assert it, he will be dismissed from the action.

Under subdivision (b), when a person as described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) cannot be made a party, the court is to determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties already before it, or should be dismissed because the absent party is indispensable.

Subdivision (c) continues the requirement that a pleading asserting a claim for relief state the names of persons described in subdivision (c) who are not joined as parties and the reasons for their non-joinder.

The official comment of the federal advisory committee on civil rules on the change in Federal Rule 19 is comprehensive and should be consulted.