suit to continue in both the state and federal courts would likely subject all of the parties to conflicting legal obligations in a manner prohibited by Rule 19(a)(2)(ii). As the district court noted, in the instant case both courts are being asked to make determinations on the validity and interpretation of the Agreement, creating a high likelihood of incongruous results. In previous cases we have ruled that the increased potential for inconsistent judgments is grounds for finding a non-joined party necessary. See Real Driveaway Co., 173 F.3d 915, 918-19 (4th Cir.1999) (continuing without the necessary party is impermissible because permitting the suit to proceed without un-joined parties could subject a joined party to conflicting legal obligations); Schlumberger, 36 F.3d at 1286-87 (<HOLDING>). See also Window Glass Cutters League of
holding that because attorney decides which legal claims to file and party provides at most factual basis for claims party should not be punished for their attorneys conduct unless the party is implicated apart from having entrusted its legal representation and trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning party under chapter 10 holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding holding that the potential for factual and legal whipsaw favored finding that the unjoined party was necessary holding that the bankruptcy court abuses or exceeds its discretion when 1 its decision rests on an error of law such as application of the wrong legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding or 2 its decision  though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding  cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions