Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Civil Procedure

390 U.S. 102 (1968)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureRequired JoinderIndispensable PartiesDeclaratory JudgmentRule 19joinderindispensable partynecessary party

Facts

After a fatal car accident, Lynch's estate obtained a $50,000 settlement against the estate of driver Cionci, but Cionci's estate could not pay. Lynch's estate then brought this diversity declaratory judgment action to establish that Cionci had been driving Dutcher's car with Dutcher's permission, which would bring Cionci within Dutcher's automobile liability policy issued by Lumbermens. Dutcher, the car owner, was not joined because he was a Pennsylvania citizen like the plaintiffs, so his joinder as a defendant would destroy diversity. The District Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, but the Court of Appeals raised nonjoinder on its own and ordered dismissal.

Issue

When a person should be joined if feasible under Rule 19(a) but cannot be joined without destroying diversity, must the action automatically be dismissed as to an 'indispensable' party? Also, could the court of appeals properly require dismissal because related state tort actions were pending?

Rule

Whether an absent person is 'indispensable' is not determined by abstract labels or an absolute substantive right to joinder. Under Rule 19(b), when joinder is not feasible, the court must decide pragmatically and in equity and good conscience whether the action should proceed by considering the plaintiff's interest in a forum, the defendant's interest in avoiding multiple or inconsistent obligations, the absent person's practical ability to protect his interest, the public and judicial interest in complete and efficient settlement, and the possibility of shaping relief to reduce prejudice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal diversity action in Denver, Maya Ortiz seeks a declaratory judgment that a liability policy issued by Front Range Casualty covers a contractor's accident. A warehouse owner, Caleb Voss, also claims an interest in the same limited policy proceeds, but joining Caleb as a defendant would destroy diversity.

If Caleb is a person who should be joined if feasible but cannot be joined without defeating diversity, what is the proper approach for the federal court?

Explanation. The majority held that when a person should be joined if feasible under Rule 19(a) but cannot be joined, the court does not apply an automatic label-based rule. Instead, Rule 19(b) requires a practical, case-specific inquiry whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed, considering prejudice, ways to reduce prejudice, adequacy, and the adequacy of dismissal as a remedy. The absent person's status is not fixed in the abstract. (Derived from Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson (1968).)