Opinion ID: 4530849
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: leave an existing party subject to a

Text: substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1). A necessary party must be joined as a party to the action unless joinder would deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. In those circumstances, the court must assess whether in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed by considering the factors provided in Rule 19(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). BCLIC is not a necessary party under Rule 19(a)(1)(A) because the district court could – and indeed did – afford complete relief notwithstanding BCLIC's 19 19-225-cv Washington National Insurance Co. v. OBEX Group LLC, and Randall Katzenstein absence. See MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n, Inc., 471 F.3d 377, 385 (2d Cir. 2006). Nor is it a necessary party under Rule 19(a)(1)(B) because it fails to satisfy a threshold requirement: The 'absent party . . . must claim an interest' for [Rule 19(a)(1)(B)] purposes. ConnTech Dev. Co. v. Univ. of Conn. Educ. Props., Inc., 102 F.3d 677, 683 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. V. Segal, 89 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 1996)). BCLIC never did so. Cf. id. ([The purported necessary party] has clearly declined to claim an interest in the subject matter of this dispute.). BCLIC therefore is not a necessary party, let alone an indispensable party, under Rule 19.