SCRCP 19

(a) Persons to Be Joined if Feasible. 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 (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that

interest or (ii) 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. 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.

Note:

This Rule 19(a) is the same as the Federal Rule. The principle behind this Rule is that

whenever possible persons materially interested in the action should be joined so that

they may be heard and a complete determination had. When this joinder is not

possible, the case should be examined pragmatically and a choice made between

proceeding without the particular interested party or dismissing the action. Dean

Lightsey, in Code Pleading, notes that the number of cases in which there is truly an

"indispensable party" in whose absence the court should not proceed are very rare. Id.

at 109-110. The Rule provides for joining such a party as a defendant or involuntary

plaintiff similar to Code § 15-5-40. Case law interpreting the Federal Rule makes it

clear that the absence of a party does not automatically deprive the court of

jurisdiction to resolve the interests of the parties before it. This changes some older

state precedents which have held that such defects were jurisdictional. See Green v.

Niver, 43 S.C. 359, 21 S.E. 263 (1894); Gooch v. Elliott, 120 S.C. 245, 113 S.E. 72 (1922).

(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not Feasible. If a person as described in subdivision

(a)(1)-(2) hereof cannot be made a party, the court shall determine 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. The factors to be considered by the court include: first,

to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to him or those

already parties; second, 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; third, whether a judgment

rendered in the person's absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate

remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.

Note:

When a party described in Rule 19(a) cannot be joined, the court must decide whether

to proceed with the case in that party's absence. This Rule 19(b) provides the practical

factors for the court to consider in reaching its determination, and are not meant to

be exclusive. Only if pragmatic considerations strongly indicate that it would be

preferable to dismiss the action rather than proceed with the parties before it, should

the court conclude that the absent party is truly "indispensable." Under Rule 12(h)(1)

the lack of an "indispensable" party in this sense can be raised as late as the trial on

the merits. However, if the purpose of the motion is to protect the movant from an

apparently unfavorable situation, rather than to protect the absent party, the court

may properly consider delay in making the motion as a reason against dismissing the

action.

(c) Pleading Reasons for Nonjoinder. Any pleading asserting a cause of action for relief shall state

the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) hereof who are

not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.

(d) Exception of Class Actions. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 23 in class actions.

Note:

This Rule 19(c) is substantially the same as the Federal Rule. Rule 19(d) simply refers to

Rule 23 for joinders in class actions.