Opinion ID: 163863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Factor 3: Whether an adequate judgment can be entered in the Tribe's absence

Text: 42 Plaintiffs contend that the third Rule 19(b) factor — whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate — did not support dismissal because the court could have afforded them complete relief without joining the Tribe. Plaintiffs, however, misconstrue the nature of the adequacy inquiry. The Supreme Court has explained that Rule 19(b)'s third factor is not intended to address the adequacy of the judgment from the plaintiff's point of view. See Patterson, 390 U.S. at 111, 88 S.Ct. 733 ([T]he plaintiff, who himself chose both the forum and the parties defendant, will not be heard to complain about the sufficiency of the relief obtainable against them.). Rather, the factor is intended to address the adequacy of the dispute's resolution. See id. The concern underlying this factor is not the plaintiff's interest but that of the courts and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies, that is, the public stake in settling disputes by wholes, whenever possible. Id. As previously discussed, a judgment rendered in the Tribe's absence could well lead to further litigation and possible inconsistent judgments. That judgment, therefore, would be inadequate. Consequently, the district court appropriately found that the third Rule 19(b) factor favored dismissal. 43