Am I right to think that in an action to enjoin the holding of an election, all of the candidates are necessary parties under FRCP 19(a)(2)(ii)? Isn't each candidate "so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect" their interests?
A court of appeals may raise the FRCP 19 issue sua sponte. As the Ninth Circuit once put it, "Rule 19 is designed to protect the interests of absent parties, as well as those ordered before the court, from multiple litigation, inconsistent judicial determinations or the impairment of interests or rights. The absence of 'necessary' parties may be raised by reviewing courts sua sponte. The issue can be properly raised at any stage in the proceeding." CP Nat. Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 928 F.2d 905, 911 (9th Cir., 1991) (citation omitted). Ed Hartnett Seton Hall
