interests.” Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 118-19, 88 S.Ct. 733, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968). Thus, the list of factors in Rule 19(b) does not create a rigid test comprised of exclusive factors. Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 128 S.Ct. 2180, 2188, 171 L.Ed.2d 131 (2008); Davis ex rel Davis v. United States, 343 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir.2003). A court must assess and balance the unique combination of concerns in a particular case. See Pimentel, 128 S.Ct. at 2188. Central to the Rule 19(b) analysis here is the fact that both of the necessary parties cannot be joined due to their sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is a compelling factor that weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. Davis v. United States, 192 F.3d 951, 960 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (citing dicta in Enter. Mgmt. Consultants,
holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that there is a strong policy favoring dismissal for nonjoinder due to tribal sovereign immunity but that rule 19b factors must still be considered recognizing the strong policy favoring dismissal when a court cannot join a tribe because of sovereign immunity holding that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar rico suit only after concluding that sue and be sued clause in tribal ordinance unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity holding that only relevant factors must be considered