Id. (citations omitted). To be sure, in making its analysis under Rule 19(a)(1), a court should consider the interests of “the public in avoiding repeated lawsuits on the same essential subject matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 19 advisory committee’s notes. Rule 19(a)(1), however, similarly “stresses the desirability of joining those persons in whose absence the court would be obliged to grant partial or ‘hollow’ rather than complete relief to the parties before the court.” Id. In this case, considering Pennsylvania’s joint and several liability rules which supply the governing substantive law, GRC’s failure to name the absent insurers to its suit plainly will not result in it obtaining “partial” or “hollow” relief if it is successful in its suit. See Janney Montgomery Scott, 11 F.3d at 406 (<HOLDING>). To this end, the advisory committee’s notes
recognizing that where liability is joint and several among multiple parties complete relief may be granted with respect to any one of them holding that one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and therefore several conspiracies because the agreement envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one holding that the surety of a joint and several bond has direct liability and may be sued individually or collectively recognizing forfeiture liability among criminal confederates to be joint and several holding that all partners are not indispensible parties defendant where state law provides for partners joint and several liability