Top litigators advise a practical, methodical approach when a non-joinder problem appears: first quickly confirm whether the omitted person is truly “necessary” (their presence is required for complete relief or to avoid inconsistent obligations), then check jurisdictional and procedural rules that govern joinder where you are (so you know the correct remedy and timing). Next, move promptly — file for joinder/impleader or seek leave to amend your pleadings, or (if you’re the defendant) raise non-joinder as an early objection — and contemporaneously propose practical remedies (stay, limited discovery, or targeted pleadings) so the court can avoid prejudice. While doing that, preserve and assemble evidence showing why the party is necessary, plead alternative theories of relief in case joinder is delayed or denied, and consider procedural alternatives such as interpleader, contribution/indemnity claims, or third-party practice to bring the absent interests into the case. If joinder is impossible (immunity or lack of jurisdiction), prepare a Rule-style analysis for dismissal vs. proceeding without the party and explain how fairness to existing parties can be protected. Finally, good lawyers balance procedural steps with practical negotiation — attempt to bring the missing party in voluntarily or use mediation/settlement to neutralize the risk of dismissal or inconsistent outcomes — and always keep a clear record to preserve appellate rights.
