By Christopher Brainard, lead of the Legal Team at LawBrainard – California-Based Antitrust and Complex Litigation Counsel
In federal litigation—especially in antitrust class actions—plaintiffs often rush to name industry defendants without fully understanding the legal and regulatory ecosystem involved. When key players are left out of the lawsuit, and their absence prevents the court from granting full or fair relief, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a required party becomes a powerful and underused defense tool.
At LawBrainard, we regularly advise clients on how and when to use this strategy to challenge the structure of flawed or overbroad complaints.
⚖️ What Is Rule 12(b)(7)?
Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to move for dismissal when the plaintiff has failed to join a party required under Rule 19. This rule is designed to:
-
Ensure that all necessary parties are present before the court
-
Prevent inconsistent obligations, incomplete relief, or prejudice to absent third parties
In complex regulatory or industry-specific litigation—such as federal antitrust claims—courts often require that state agencies, regulators, or other parties with a legal interest in the subject matter be joined if their presence is essential to resolving the case.
🧩 How Does the Court Decide If a Party Is “Required”?
Under Rule 19(a), a person or entity is considered a required party if:
-
Complete relief cannot be granted among the current parties without them;
-
The absent party has an interest in the case and may be prejudiced if the lawsuit proceeds without them; or
-
Proceeding without them might expose existing parties to inconsistent obligations.
For example, in antitrust litigation involving regulated professions (e.g., real estate brokers, healthcare providers, financial entities), courts may determine that state regulators or administrative agencies must be joined—because they:
-
Enforce licensing rules that govern the defendants’ conduct
-
Create or mandate the structures plaintiffs are challenging
-
Have authority to supervise or approve disputed business practices
🧠 When Should You Use Rule 12(b)(7) in an Antitrust Case?
You should consider this motion when:
✅ 1. The Plaintiff Is Challenging State-Regulated Conduct
If the plaintiff’s theory involves commission rules, pricing structures, listing practices, or other conduct directly governed by a state agency, and that agency is not a party to the lawsuit, then the court may lack the ability to:
-
Interpret those rules fairly
-
Modify or nullify their impact
-
Protect the agency’s interest in enforcing its own regulatory scheme
Dismissing or staying the case under Rule 12(b)(7) may be appropriate unless and until the agency is properly joined.
✅ 2. The Court Cannot Provide Complete Relief Without a Missing Party
If the court cannot fully resolve the dispute without affecting an absent party’s interests, Rule 12(b)(7) applies.
For example, if the plaintiff seeks to invalidate or modify a practice that is:
-
Mandated or authorized by a government agency
-
Carried out jointly with a third-party platform or co-defendant that was not named
-
Dependent on contractual terms involving other stakeholders
…then the absence of those actors means the court can’t fully adjudicate the claims.
✅ 3. The Existing Parties Risk Inconsistent Legal Obligations
If the absence of a regulator or co-creator of a policy could expose your business to conflicting legal standards or judgments, Rule 12(b)(7) can prevent that by requiring the case be paused or dismissed until the proper parties are involved.
🔍 How Does the Court Handle a 12(b)(7) Motion?
Rule 12(b)(7) triggers a two-step inquiry:
-
Is the absent party “required” under Rule 19(a)?
-
If yes, the court asks…
-
-
Can the party be joined?
-
If they can be joined, the court orders joinder
-
If they cannot (e.g., due to lack of jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, or venue issues), the court applies Rule 19(b) to decide whether the case can proceed or must be dismissed in “equity and good conscience”
-
🧾 What Makes a Rule 12(b)(7) Motion Strong?
Your motion is more likely to succeed when supported by:
-
Legal authority showing that the absent party has enforceable regulatory or contractual rights
-
Declarations or evidence that the party’s interests are directly implicated
-
A clear showing that without that party, the court cannot fairly or completely adjudicate the claims
In practice, we’ve seen this used effectively when plaintiffs sued industry organizations or businesses over practices that were:
-
Authorized or required by state statute
-
Subject to active oversight by a licensing agency
-
Rooted in industry agreements or templates developed with other organizations not named in the suit
🤝 How LawBrainard Can Help
At LawBrainard, we represent clients facing complex federal litigation—including class-action antitrust claims—and we help them assert strategic procedural defenses like Rule 12(b)(7) to avoid litigation that is structurally flawed or legally premature.
We can help your team:
-
Identify missing necessary parties
-
Draft persuasive 12(b)(7) motions with supporting evidence
-
Navigate Rule 19’s multi-part analysis
-
Protect your rights from incomplete or unfair litigation
-
Coordinate multi-rule motions including 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(3) for comprehensive early defense
📞 Call/Text us at (310) 266-4115
🌐 Visit: www.LawBrainard.com
🗓 Schedule a consultation with our federal litigation team today.
This article/blog is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Christopher Brainard, Esq. An attorney-client relationship can only be formed through a written and signed agreement with Christopher Brainard. If you need legal advice about your specific situation contact us for a consultation. [Christopher Brainard, 651 N. Sepulveda Blvd., #2010, Bel Air, CA 90049. Tel: (310) 266 - 4115. Email: christopherbrainard@gmail.com].