§19.4 Comparison with Federal Rule

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§19.4COMPARISON WITH FEDERAL RULE

The text of CR 19(a)-(d) is substantially similar to that of Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)-(d). This is true despite the 2007 stylistic revisions to the federal rules. The purposes of CR 19 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 remain the same.

The 2007 revisions to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 made two noteworthy changes to the rule's terminology. First, the 2007 federal rule includes a new heading entitled "Required Party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)( 1). Although the text of the rule remains substantively unchanged, this new nomenclature appears intended to replace the traditional designation of a "necessary" party. Second, the 2007 federal rule eliminates the term "indispensable." As noted above, the 1966 version of the rule included this term only in a conclusory sense. If, based on the factors listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), the court concluded that an action should be dismissed due to the absence of a party, then it would follow only as a conclusion that the party was indispensable. In fact, the federal advisory committee had considered eliminating that term for this reason as early as 1964. 4 Moore's Federal Practice §19App.02[2], at 19App.-9 n.7. The 2007 rule recognized that the term "indispensable" was only a label resulting from applying the factors of Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) and was therefore redundant. 4 Moore's Federal Practice §19App.04[2], at 19App.-13.

The federal...