Opinion ID: 2467838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the joinder of parties

Text: Having determined that the wife was not virtually represented by her husband, a second question is urged for consideration: was Dolores Cooper an indispensable party in the first suit? Under the traditional view, if she was an indispensable party, the judgment in the first suit would be invalid and not res judicata as to either of the Coopers; if she was not an indispensable party, then the judgment would be binding on Dr. Cooper since he was a party, although still not binding on Mrs. Cooper. Petroleum Anchor Equipment, Inc. v. Tyra, 406 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.1966). Amended Rule 39, [3] however, initiated an entirely new method for resolving the question of joinder of parties. Amended Rule 39, effective January 1, 1971, is almost an exact copy by Texas of Federal Rule 19, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is also of recent origin, having been adopted in 1966. Prior to the amendment to Rule 39, Texas resolved questions of joinder of parties by efforts to catalogue parties as proper, necessary, indispensable, conditionally necessary, or insistible. Typical of that approach is this court's preamendment opinion in Petroleum Anchor Equipment, Inc. v. Tyra, supra , where it is stated: It is at once apparent that the `necessary' parties of which the rule speaks fall into two categories: (1) those who under the paragraph (a) `shall be made parties,' and (2) those who under paragraph (b) `ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between those already parties.' It is also at once apparent that `persons having a joint interest' within the meaning of paragraph (a), properly interpreted, are indispensable parties, but that those who simply ought to be joined if complete relief is to be accorded between those already parties are not indispensable. The rule expressly confers discretion upon trial courts to proceed without joinder of persons in the second category if jurisdiction over them can be acquired only by their consent or voluntary appearance. If joinder of such persons is discretionary, their joinder cannot be essential to jurisdiction of a court to proceed to judgment. 406 S.W.2d 891 at 893. That historical and classical approach to the joinder of parties has now been wholly replaced. The reasons and legal literature which impelled the adoption of the new approach are well summarized in 7 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1601 (1972). One of the aims of the revised rule was to avoid questions of jurisdiction. The text states: In addition to the failure of many courts to articulate satisfactory bases of decision prior to 1966, the Advisory Committee referred to other defects in the original version of Rule 19. Paramount among these was a problem of `jurisdiction' that arose in connection with the concept of indispensable parties. The Committee felt that the rule's [original] wording suggested that the absence of an indispensable party `itself deprived the court of the power to adjudicate as between the parties already joined.' As is discussed in another section, failure to join a party under Rule 19 is not really a jurisdictional matter inasmuch as the court does have subject matter jurisdiction over the action before it; what is involved is a question of whether the court should decline to adjudicate the dispute because certain persons are absent. The present language of Rule 19(a) and Rule 19(b) should help eliminate this confusion. And see C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts § 70 at 298-99 (2 ed. 1970). Contrary to our emphasis under Rule 39 before it was amended, today's concern is less that of the jurisdiction of a court to proceed and is more a question of whether the court ought to proceed with those who are present. Rippey v. Denver United States National Bank, 42 F.R.D. 316 (D. Colo.1967). The United States Supreme Court provides a helpful discussion of the objectives sought by its amended Rule 19 in Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 88 S.Ct. 733, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968). One of the practical factors the court took into consideration in holding that an absent party was not jurisdictionally indispensable was the fact that the case had actually been tried as to those parties who were present and there was no objection at the trial level concerning the nonjoinder of a party. As expressed in Continental Insurance Co. of New York v. Cotten, 427 F.2d 48, 51 (9th Cir. 1970), at the appellate stage there is reason not to throw away a judgment just because it did not theoretically settle the whole controversy. The amended rule includes practical considerations within the rule itself, including the extent to which an absent party may be prejudiced, the extent to which protective provisions may be made in the judgment, and whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed or be dismissed. The factors mentioned in the rule which a judge may consider are not exclusive. Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson, supra; Bixby v. Bixby, 50 F.R.D. 277 (S.D.Ill.1970); 7 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, at 14. As expressed in Schutten v. Shell Oil Co., 421 F.2d 869, 874 (5th Cir. 1970), [t]he watchwords of Rule 19 are `pragmatism' and `practicality.' The court must, however, always consider the possibility of shaping a decree in order to adjudicate between the parties who have been joined. Under the provisions of our present Rule 39 it would be rare indeed if there were a person whose presence was so indispensable in the sense that his absence deprives the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties already joined. Although not of controlling importance, the very title of the rule has been changed from Necessary Joinder of Parties to Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication. Subdivision (a) provides that certain persons shall be joined, but there is no arbitrary standard or precise formula for determining whether a particular person falls within its provisions. It is clear, moreover, that the persons described in the subdivision are to be joined only if subject to service of process. When such a person cannot be made a party, the court is required to determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed. Under the foregoing analysis of Rule 39 we determine that the named parties in the first suit, Dr. Cooper and T.G. I., were properly before the court for the resolution of the issues between them; that the judgment of dismissal with prejudice resolved those issues and is necessarily res judicata as to the claims of Dr. Cooper in the second and instant suit; that the judgment of dismissal is not res judicata, however, with respect to the rights and claims of Mrs. Dolores Cooper; and finally, that the judgment of dismissal is conclusive as to Dr. Cooper except to the extent that it might have to be disregarded in giving Mrs. Cooper all the relief to which she may show herself entitled. The judgments of the courts below are reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Concurring opinion by WALKER, J., in which GREENHILL, C. J., joins.