More Categories

Rule 19.1 – Compulsory Joinder

May 14, 2021 | Civil Procedure, Ohio

(A) Persons to be joined. A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action, except as provided in division (B) of this rule, if the person has an interest in or a claim arising out of the following situations:

(1) Personal injury or property damage to the person or property of the decedent which survives the decedent’s death and a claim for wrongful death to the same decedent if caused by the same wrongful act;
(2) Personal injury or property damage to a spouse and a claim of the other spouse for loss of consortium or expenses or property damage if caused by the same wrongful act;
(3) Personal injury or property damage to a minor and a claim of the parent or guardian of the minor for loss of consortium or expenses or property damage if caused by the same wrongful act;
(4) Personal injury or property damage to an employee or agent and a claim of the employer or principal for property damage if caused by the same wrongful act.
(5) Personal injury to a parent and a claim of an adult emancipated child of the parent for loss of parental consortium if caused by the same wrongful act.

If the person has not been so joined, the court, subject to division (B) of this rule, shall order that the person be made a party upon timely assertion of the defense of failure to join a party as provided in Civ.R. 12(B)(7). If the defense is not timely asserted, waiver is applicable as provided in Civ.R. 12(G) and (H). If the person should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, the person may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. In the event that such joinder causes the relief sought to exceed the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall certify the proceedings in the action to the court of common pleas.

(B) Exception to compulsory joinder. If a party to the action or a person described in s division (A) shows good cause why that person should not be joined, the court shall proceed without requiring joinder.
(C) Pleading reasons for nonjoinder. A pleading asserting a claim for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons as described in divisions (A)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this rule who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined.
(D) Exception of class actions. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 23.

Ohio. Civ.R. 19.1

Effective:July 1, 1970; amended effective July 1, 1996;July 1, 2016;July 1, 2017.

Staff Note (July 1, 2017 Amendment)

Civ.R. 19.1(A)(5). Claims of adult emancipated children for loss of parental consortium. In Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 380, 2001-Ohio-44, the Supreme Court of 59 Ohio held that adult emancipated children may recover under Ohio law for the loss of parental 60 consortium caused by injuries to a parent. The 2017 amendments add those claims to the claims 61 enumerated under Civ.R. 19.1(A). The amendments also make other nonsubstantive changes.

Staff Note (July 1, 2016 Amendments)

The rule is amended to make gender neutral language changes, including at division 19.1(A)(2) where “spouse ” is substituted for “husband or wife” as a person to be joined in particular actions. The amendments are made accordance with the July 26, 2015 Administrative Action of the Ohio Supreme Court, 06/26/2015 Administrative Actions, 2015-Ohio-2568, which ordered that the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure be construed and amended as gender neutral where appropriate to comply with the decision of U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ , 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015). The amendments also make non-substantive stylistic changes to the rule.

Staff Note (July 1, 1996 Amendment)

Rule 19.1(A), Persons to be Joined

The amendment conforms the rule to a clarification of law in the Supreme Court’s decision in Gallimore v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 244, 617 N.E.2d 1052. There, the Court stated in both syllabi that “Consortium includes society, companionship, affection, comfort, guidance and counsel.” Since the word “consortium” is more inclusive than the word “services,” it is more appropriate to use the former term. The amendment should avoid confusion between the rule and the substantive law in this regard.