Sureties Are Not Necessary Parties under FRCP

D&D Assocs., Inc. v. N. Plainfield Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 2277121 (D.N.J. June 2, 2008)

In this case, the court addressed whether a surety company was a necessary party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) and whether a motion to amend the pleadings to include the surety was untimely, prejudicial and futile.  D&D Associates had sued the Board of Education to recover the contract balances owed in connection with work on a school construction project.  Almost five years after commencing the lawsuit, the Board sought to amend their answer to join the surety, American Motorists Insurance Company, to the litigation.  The court denied the motion on the grounds that sureties are not necessary parties, and because it was untimely, prejudicial, wasteful and futile to join the party at such a late stage of litigation.