Compulsory Joinder (Rule 19) requires joinder of a party when their absence would deprive the court of complete relief.

Compulsory Joinder (Rule 19) requires joinder of a party when their absence would deprive the court of complete relief.

• A. A party is necessary if their absence would deprive the court of complete relief.
• B. A party is necessary if the party's absence would impair their own ability to protect their interests.
• C. A party is necessary if the case involves federal question.
• D. A party is never necessary.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is compulsory joinder under Rule 19, which asks when a party must be joined to a lawsuit. A party is considered necessary if, without them, the court cannot grant complete relief among the existing parties. That exact criterion is what the statement describes, so it’s the best answer. There is another ground for joinder—that the party’s absence would impair their own ability to protect their interests—but the prompt is focusing on the complete-relief aspect, so that option isn’t as directly applicable. Federal-question status doesn’t determine whether a party must be joined, and while there are scenarios where joinder isn’t feasible, the straightforward test for necessity here is about ensuring complete relief.

The main idea here is compulsory joinder under Rule 19, which asks when a party must be joined to a lawsuit. A party is considered necessary if, without them, the court cannot grant complete relief among the existing parties. That exact criterion is what the statement describes, so it’s the best answer.

There is another ground for joinder—that the party’s absence would impair their own ability to protect their interests—but the prompt is focusing on the complete-relief aspect, so that option isn’t as directly applicable. Federal-question status doesn’t determine whether a party must be joined, and while there are scenarios where joinder isn’t feasible, the straightforward test for necessity here is about ensuring complete relief.