(b) WHEN JOINDER IS NOT FEASIBLE
If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:
(1)the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;
(2)the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:
(A)protective provisions in the judgment;
(B)shaping the relief; or
(3)whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and
(4)whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.
Comments
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
This rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, as amended in 2007, but maintains the following local distinctions: 1) the federal provision related to venue is deleted because it pertains to “[a] change of venue [which] is not an available option in the District [of Columbia],” Catlett v. United States, 545 A.2d 1202, 1215 n.27 (D.C. 1988); 2) the federal venue provision is replaced with a provision specifying that service of process must be accomplished in accordance with Rule 4.
COMMENT
Identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 except for the deletion of the inapplicable last sentence in section (a) thereof relating to venue and for the addition of the provision that service of process under the Rule must be accomplished in accordance with Rule 4, including the time limit imposed by Rule 4(j). For discussion of service of process on Rule 19 parties, see Rule 4(f) and D.C. Code § 11-943 (b) (1981).