Here’s the latest from the Hawaii Supreme Court on the joinder of parties under Rule 19, where there’s a claim that an absent party is “indispensable” and thus the case should be dismissed. Bottom line is that an absentee should be joined if its presence is needed, and the “indispensable” determination only needs to be undertaken if the party can’t be joined. In other words, dismissal is the last resort.
We won’t go into the details of Kellberg v. Yuen, No. SCWC-12-0000266 (Apr. 15, 2015), because we represent the plaintiff-respondent. So we will leave it to others to dissect the opinion for any civil procedure gems and practical tips. But read the opinion if you want to understand the details for yourself.
This is the second time that this case has gone to the Supreme Court, the first trip resulting in a published opinion clarifying when an order by an agency must be challenged under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Kellberg v. Yuen, No. SCWC-12-0000266 (Haw. Apr. 15, 2015)