Tejeda-Mata allows for justifications for the delay in submitting an issue. Tejeda-Mata, 626 F.2d at 726. Considering that Parisi was decided on November 8,1995, eight days before the appeal by Plaintiff to the Appeals Council, and the ALJ hearing was months before this, it seems excusable that this case was excluded from earlier administrative proceedings. While Tejeda-Mata doesn’t outline what particular justifications might be reasonable, in view of the Parisi time line, the court feels this delay was within an acceptable range. V.SHOULD THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED UNDER RULE 19? Whether an action should be dismissed under Rule 19 involves a two step process: (1) the court must decide whether the absent party should be joined as a necessary party under R F.2d 1030, 1045 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Defendant makes this motion to dismiss under
holding that collateral estoppel precludes future litigation between the same parties of ultimate facts that have been determined by valid and final judgments holding that speculation about occurrence of future event ordinarily does not render all parties potentially affected by that future event necessary or indispensable parties holding that all property owners affected by a residential use permit are necessary parties holding that no claim of mutual mistake can be stated on the basis of disappointed expectations as to a future event which amount to mere conjecture not an existing fact holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding the possible sentenceenhancing consequences of a plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future