the party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b) (listing factors for courts to consider). The district court held that Sterilization Systems failed the first requirement, because it was not a “necessary” party. As is evident, Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a) provides that a party is “necessary” in two circumstances: (1) when complete relief is not possible without the absent party’s presence, or (2) when the absent party claims a legally protected interest in the action. See Yellowstone County v. Pease, 96 F.3d 1169, 1172 (9th Cir.1996) (citing those two circumstances). The district court first held that it could afford complete relief without Sterilization Systems, because the government sought to enjoin only defendant’s actions. Defendant does not challe st v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449, 1460 n. 18 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Morongo Band of Mission
holding that a limited partner does not have an interest right or title in the assets of the partnership holding diversity jurisdiction was collusively obtained because the transferor retained a onehalf interest in the outcome of the litigation and was an indispensable party but for the assignment holding that a default judgment was not void because the bankruptcy court that entered the judgment had proper jurisdiction over the party seeking relief holding that accruing interest at the default interest rate was not a penalty but the addition of a 5 late charge on top of the default interest would have been unreasonable pursuant to  506b and would have therefore been a penalty holding that westwood was not an indispensable party to the proceedings because westwood had not claimed an interest in busters limited partnership interest at the time of the default judgment