(2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a). If the absent party is “necessary,” the court must determine whether joinder is “feasible.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a) & (b). Finally, if joinder is not “feasible,” the court must decide whether the absent party is “indispensable,” i.e., whether in “equity and good conscience” the action can continue wi ndians v. Rose, 34 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). DEFENDANT FAILED TO PRESERVE HIS ARGUMENT
holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it holding that a party does not automatically qualify as a real party in interest merely because it has been named as a defendant in a declaratory judgment action holding that neither the tribe or its tribal court was necessary to the determination of the tribal courts jurisdiction given that the district courts judgment would be binding on the absent party and they did not have a legally protected interest at issue noting that the tribe was not a party to a relevant agreement or treaty with any party to the suit holding that when the united states is a named party participates in the general action and is or may be interested in the outcome of an appeal even though it is not a party to the appeal it is a party for purposes of frap 4a holding that because the absent party did not feel that it was necessarily in his interest to remain a party in this action it is inappropriate for one defendant to attempt to champion the absent partys interests