To determine whether a party is 'indispensable' under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, a court must undertake a two-part analysis: it must first determine if an absent party is 'necessary' to the suit; then if, as here, the party cannot be joined, the court must determine whether the party is 'indispensible' so that in 'equity and good conscience' the suit should be dismissed. The inquiry is a practical one and fact specific, see Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 118-19, 19 L. Ed. 2d 936, 88 S. Ct. 733 (1968), and is designed to avoid the harsh results of rigid application. Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Joint Apprenticeship & Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917, 74 L. Ed. 2d 183, 103 S. Ct. 231 (1982). The moving party has the burden of persuasion in arguing for dismissal. Sierra Club v. Watt, 608 F. Supp. 305, 312 (E.D. Cal. 1985).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 provides: (a) Persons to be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the ...