Document: 390 U.S. 102 88 S.Ct. 733 19 L.Ed.2d 936 PROVIDENT TRADESMENS BANK & TRUST CO., Administrator of the Estate John R. Lynch, etc., Petitioner,v.George M. PATTERSON, Donald Cionci et al. No. 28. Argued Nov. 6 and 7, 1967. Decided Jan. 29, 1968. [Syllabus from pages 102-103 intentionally omitted] Avram G. Adler, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. Norman Paul Harvey, respondents. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered opinion Court. 1 This controversy, involving in its present posture dismissal a declaratory judgment action nonjoinder an 'indispensable' party, began nearly 10 years ago with traffic accident. An automobile owned by Edward Dutcher, who was not when accident occurred, being driven Cionci, to whom Dutcher had given keys. Lynch Harris were passengers. The crossed median strip highway collided truck Thomas Smith. Smith killed severely injured. 2 Three tort actions brought. Provident Tradesmens Bank, administrator estate passenger petitioner here, sued driver, diversity action. Smith's administratrix, person, each brought state-court against owner, Lynch. These actions, unknown reasons, have never gone trial are still pending. Cionci's settled $50,000, which penniless, has paid. 3 owner defendant as yet untried liability insurance policy Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, respondent here. That upper limit $100,000 all claims arising out single fund potentially subject two different sorts plaintiffs. First, himself might be held vicariously liable 'principal'; likelihood such is matter considerable doubt dispute. Second, terms covered direct any person driving Dutcher's car 'permission.' 4 company declined, after notice, defend Lynch's believing that permission hence policy. facts allegedly entrusted his but made detour errand allowed taken. armed $50,000 liquidated claim declaration use been 'with permission' Dutcher. only named defendants Cionci. other plaintiffs joined resident State Pennsylvania plaintiffs, either plaintiff or defendant. failure join him adverted at level. 5 major question law contested state-law question. District Court, Bank Trust Company v. 218 F.Supp. 802 ruled that, applicable (Pennsylvania) law, driver presumed owner. Hence, unless contrary evidence could introduced, now would entitled directed verdict company. possible testimony restrictions he imposed on automobile. claimed, however, under 'Dead Man Rule' incompetent testify this them. Court upheld claim. It if 'adverse' interest estate. found adversity potential need call upon pay judgments himself, consequent having part used therefore, verdicts favor estates. was, live plaintiff, Harris. jury, nonetheless, permission, awarded also. appealed Appeals Third Circuit, raising various questions.1 Appeals, 365 F.2d (C.A.3d Cir.) did reach these issues. Instead, reargument en banc, it decided, 5—2, reverse alternative grounds neither raised appellant. 7 first indispensable party. court 'adverse interests' rendered Dead Rule also required consider whether fact already rendered, without objection affected matter. Nor follow provision Federal Rules Civil Procedure findings 'indispensability' must based stated pragmatic considerations. held, contrary, right 'may affected' 'substantive' right, unaffected federal rules; proceed' absence person; since destroying jurisdiction dismissed. 8 Since ruling presented serious challenge scope newly amended 19, we granted certiorari. 386 940, 87 972, 17 872. Concluding inflexible approach adopted case exemplifies kind reasoning designed avoid, reverse. I. 9 parts read follows: 'Rule 19. Joinder Persons Needed Just Adjudication 11 '(a) Joined Feasible. A service process whose joinder will deprive over shall party (1) complete relief cannot accorded among those parties, (2) relating so situated disposition may (i) practical impair impede ability protect (ii) leave persons parties substantial risk incurring double, multiple, otherwise inconsistent obligations reason claimed interest. If joined, order should refuses do so, defendant, or, proper case, involuntary plaintiff. objects venue render improper, dismissed 12 '(b) Determination Whenever described subdivision (a)(1)—(2) hereof determine equity good conscience proceed before it, dismissed, absent thus regarded indispensable. factors considered include: first, what extent person's prejudicial parties; second, which, protective provisions judgment, shaping relief, measures, prejudice can lessened avoided; third, adequate; fourth, adequate remedy non-joinder.' 13 We assume, outset, falls within category who, § (a), 'joined feasible.' adjudication validity certain fund. faced possibility him, preserved cover liability. Hence there existed, went trial, least interest, lead later relitigation him. 14 optimum solution, binding interested persons, 'feasible,' diversity. problem one 19(b) appears address itself: 'should feasible,' dismiss him? emerged time subsidiary questions. effect, any, raise Court? importance, although reached extensive litigation? three questions prove, examination, interwoven. 15 conclude, consideration record applying 'equity conscience' test 19(b), erred allowing stand. 16 suggests four 'interests' examined whether, conscience, litigation compelled.2 Each interests must, viewed entirely appellate perspective court. forum. Before strength obviously depends satisfactory forum exists.3 On appeal, won, strong additional preserving judgment. properly wish avoid multiple litigation, sole responsibility shares another. After failed assert quite foreclosed.4 Third, outsider desirable join. Of course, court, bound rendered. means, res judicata to, legally enforceable against, nonparty.5 does mean (a) issue practice, affects nonparty (b) (to contrary) always considering effect nonparties simply because they 'bound' technical sense.6 19(a) expresses 'as protect' When appeal stage more complex. affect even though affecting rendered.7 necessary, appeals should, own initiative, take steps course no opportunity plead prove below.8 18 Fourth, remains courts public complete, consistent, efficient settlement controversies. Rule's third criterion, issued nonjoined 'adequate,' refer stake settling disputes wholes, whenever possible, clearly chose both heard complain about sufficiency obtainable considerations efficiency include expense spent. directs district accommodate interests. Commentators argued greater attention paid solution stymie,9 makes explicit modification dismissal.10 Needless say, require suitable condition affirmance. 20 Had applied 19's criteria hardly conclusion did. begin plaintiff's viewpoint. difficult decide 'adequate' nonjoinder: here same action, plus state 'adequacy' hypothetical alternative, plaintiffs' point view, greatly diminished. Their fully litigated overborne rather opposing than earlier concern 21 Opposing hard find. stake, asserted real, They showed until took into hands. forecloses theirs, purposes clarity note company, limited $100,000, full litigate claimant involved. Its obtain windfall escape defeat trial. 22 outsider, reckon. concluding command matter, impaired nonparty's rights, quoted Court's proof 'right' joined: 23 'The suit coverage Lumbermens' Depending outcome share Estate, thereby extending availability proceeds satisfy Sharing finite limits another, making available claimants immediately worth less alone. By instant them their estate, lose measure protection. Conversely, gain. * sufficient purpose determining (of interest) protection dependent suit. proceedings adverse represent, record, deceased controversy.'11 24 There logical error Appeals' appropriation purposes: (sufficient invoke Rule) benefited company; harmed 25 same. lost issue, loss ended favorably If, happened, estopped relitigating issue. At previous decision because, technically nonparty, purposely bypassed intervene. argument correct circumstances case. foreclosed intervene then vanishes, rights inaction. 26 below, and, theory, harmed. remains, likely opportunity, relitigate. threat money disappeared Upon find supposed large nor unavoidable. 27 lain dormant pleading acted. Petitioner asserts vicarious virtually chance recovery accept assertion fact, explored below. Furthermore, event unlikely prejudiced Himself identical Should seek collect personally, able defensively, irrelevant actual monies disappeared: therefore payments behalf credited raises defense lose, merits ground joined. 28 unconvinced trivial, nevertheless avoided difficulties phrasing decree. unspecified refused immediate payment Payment withheld pending suits (if became necessary) In furthermore, counsel petitioners represented orally they, limitation amount Obviously compromise below willing abandon rigid ways preserve appellants' contentions, perfectly valid 29 suggestion 'permission' fourth 'interest' cases—efficiency. preferable, level, defendants, force go elsewhere. Even preference highly problematical, depended fund, revealed problematical throw away just theoretically settle whole controversy. II. 30 Application 19(b)'s doubtless led result reasons disregarding remain examined.12 majority concluded inapplicable involved, substantive Rules. Although articulate exactly are, determines them, following argument: called 'indispensable parties'; defined definition modified rule; (3) falling participate lawsuit absolute.13 31 With contrast position reflected Whether 'indispensable,' is, particular determined context litigation.14 category, presently question, terminology, older necessary parties. Assuming existence feasible, further arises To familiar confusing merely 'necessary' while 'indispensable.'15 (i.e., missing 'indispensable') varying cases, some substantive, procedural, compelling themselves, balancing prevent interests; commands examine controversy make really exist. say 'must' 'cannot puts wrong way around: know situation 32 concluded, hold, 19th century cases created federal, common-law, class corresponding lawsuits.'16 least, started. arose earliest giving rise extended discussion relatively simple inefficiency persons. several cotenants objected Chief Marshall replied: 33 'This jurisdiction, addresses itself Courts require, concerned finally settled. equitable rule, framed itself, discretion. (B)eing introduced justice, (the rule) susceptible promotion purposes. exercise discretion, power bring every But, completely decided between litigant circumstance exists ought decree merits.'17 34 Following equity, declared true involved rights. involvement inescapable adjudication. left 'rights' belonged adjudicate 35 Mallow Hinde, Wheat. 193, L.Ed. 599, essence, sought specific performance contract convey land, vendor (who joined) through chain title. saw purport (incorrectly) grantor, nothing. said, language Appeals: 36 'In complainants separable from, independent of, lie very foundation final directly prejudicing others 37 'We put much broader *.' actually constructively Court.'18 38 Nothing formulation, lower expected examining person. As explicitly stated, 'jurisdiction' Rather, grantor nothing decide. 39 second relied Northern Indiana Co. Michigan Central Co., How. 233, 674, presents aspect joinder. injunction construction railroad build. Thus seeking would, abrogate contractual nonparty. Among unpleasant possibilities entailed proceeding conflicting injunctive orders. 40 '* like present, where see New Albany vitally affected, prayed given, refuse become instrument injustice.'19 41 Again, reliance show necessarily unjust proceed, altogether misplaced: injustice factual legal it. Neither we, today, foreclose examination future being, be, done constitutional, outside instance, 42 most influential joinable Shields Barrow, 130, 158, referred attempted, perhaps unfortunately, general definitions proceed. former placed 43 'Persons act rule requires on, entire adjusting commonly termed decree, latter parties.'20 44 nature leaving termination wholly conscience.'21 45 generalizations consistent requirements substitute analysis Rule. Indeed, states, fashion, announced 19(b). One basis 'cannot' issuance Alternatively, written protects leaves conscience,' 46 Barrow 'substantive right' absence. unable saying either. dealt unavoidably, said rights.22 ineffective attempt change Shields, statement forced takes, aught appears, account fairness outsiders arise cases. This, III. 47 distinct reversing ordering recalled came courts. one, Smith, suing tortfeasor, theory doing accident, 'control' Harris, injured passenger, theories separate 'presented mooted policy,' proceding, declined allow law. 48 belive incorrectly. While reaffirm our prior holding decline issues contemporaneously courts, e.g., Brillhart Excess Ins. 316 491, 62 1173, 86 1620, 49 declare motion compel unwarranted warranted intrusion conclude discretionary prolonged taken deciding abstention wiser course. 50 administrator, actions. 'all parties' implication resulted correct. defending sense personal representative (a case) tort. coverage: won well short, net presumably except compelled wait convenience control, victory 51 sure, critical gave But ultimate acting agent, personally 'permission,' bringing Resolution 'agency' bearing resolution (and ever tried) estates Rule, testify, 52 think clear vacated remanded considered, affirm issues, appropriate protecting 53 ordered. 54 Judgment Appeals. Appellants challenged submitting jury factually indistinguishable, instructions. For convenience, treat appearing Our list follows Reed, Compulsory Parties Actions, 55 Mich.L.Rev. 327, 330 (1957). Advisory Committee Procedure, Note 1966 Revision Moore, Practice 19.01 (hereinafter cited 'Committee Note', comments factor listed adequacy dismissed: '(T)he assurance sue effectively another better possible.' See Fitzgerald Haynes, 241 417, 420 Cir.); Fouke Schenewerk, 197 234, 236 (C.A.5th Cir.). 'when moving undue delay counted denying motion.' erroneously overruled harassment defendants. Young Powell, 179 147 supra, n. 2, 330—335. Hazard, Indispensable Party: Historical Origin Procedural Phantom, 61 Col.L.Rev. 1254 (1961). Keegan Humble Oil Refining 155 971 Bourdieu Pacific Western 299 65, 57 51, 81 42, inquiry indispensability unnecessary complaint cause Calcote Texas Pac. Coal 157 216, 167 A.L.R. 413 Cir.), criticized, Barron Holtzoff, 516 (1967 Supp.) (Wright ed.). E.g., Hoe Wilson, Wall. 501, 762. generally 2. Kaplan, Continuing Work Committee: Amendments (I), Harv.L.Rev. 356 (1967). Compare Roos 171 (C.A.2d points out, principle meshes considered. 'Can legitimate needs judicial machinery?' 802, 805—806, F.2d, 805. rewritten subsequent occasion old version new July 1, 1966, arose, rely version, form, application dissent applicable, reversed version. text intended principles. 'was defective decision.' rule-making authority congressional veto, approved Committee's suggestions. Where emphasizes effects alternatives dismissing, tended emphasize classification 'indispensable.' approaches come point, asking considerations, Shaughnessy Pedreiro, 349 48, 75 591, 99 868, 'prescribed formula,' Niles-Bement-Pond Iron Moulders' Union Local 68, 254 77, 39, 65 145, criticizing times 'undue preoccupation abstract classifications obligations, consequences ameliorated precautions.' excellent example causing apprehension Parker Rust-Proof Tel. 105 976 Judge Swan, writing panel included Judges L. Hand A. N. Hand, patent, object respecting accomplish justice suffer justice.' Id., 980. basis, nonjoinder. Under for, ultimately, reason. avoids purely verbal anomaly, turns dispensable all. commentator '(i)f sound, invalid. support proposition judge doctrines compulsory beyond rulemaking power.' 512, 21.14 remarked, '(t)here prescribed formula 80, 41, 145. (19(b)) uses word conclusory sense, 'regarded indispensable' above mentioned, preferable retain it.' Numerous joinder, principles enunciated However, none resembling case: precisely formulas extracted contexts analysis. Moreover, 'distilled essence' apply doctrine,' holding. wording 'Failure imprecise original produced variety responses formulaic employed, not. Other demonstrate close significant circumstances, leading creative justice. examples (L. J.) (decided adoption Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.); Kroese General Steel Castings Corp., 760, A.L.R.2d 1117 (Goodrich, J.); Stevens Loomis, 334 775 (C.A.1st (Aldrich, J.). interesting recognition view footnote last-cited attributing (then) proposed formulation 'the substance, procedure.' 778, 7. Taken context, Aldrich's refers pragmatically, 'substance' procedural formula. ignore undertake circumstances. Elmendorf Taylor, 152, 166—168, 289. Wheat., 198, 806. T, trustee land benefit conveyed title Hinde. Plaintiff virtue executory agreement trust beneficiaries Langham, Hinde conveyance title, T contended sell purported had, event, obtained fraud. How., 246, 139, 158. Ibid. rescission difficulty pointed undertaking facts. 340—346. He concludes insufficient one.' 344. 9, 361. example, De Korwin First Nat. 156 858, 860 (C.A.7th citing Shields. has, statedefined interests,

Category: 8