Opinion ID: 163863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factor 2: Whether potential prejudice can be lessened or avoided.

Text: 40 In their opening brief Plaintiffs raise only one challenge to the district court's analysis of the second Rule 19(b) factor — the extent to which any prejudice can be lessened or avoided. They argue that the factor is irrelevant because any prejudice to the Tribe is not legally cognizable. As previously discussed, this argument goes to the merits of their claim, rather than the potential harm to the Tribe if Defendants lose. Their challenge, therefore, must fail. We find no error in the district court's determination that this factor supports treating the Tribe as an indispensable party. (Although Plaintiffs in their reply brief also argue that any prejudice could be easily prevented by the fashioning of a decree against the BIA only, Reply Br. at 10-11, we do not address that argument because it was not timely raised. See Stump v. Gates, 211 F.3d 527, 533 (10th Cir.2000) (This court does not ordinarily review issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.).) 41