Klamath Irrigation District v. Oregon Water Resources Dept.

Under ORCP 29 B, if, after weighing whether the absent party would be subject to a prejudicial judgment, the extent a prejudicial judgment can be avoided, whether a judgment would be adequate, and whether the Plaintiff has another adequate remedy available, a judgment cannot be made “in equity and good conscience,” the party would be indispensable.

Defendants appealed an order to cease releasing stored water. Defendants assigned error to the denial of their motion to dismiss and to the grant of summary judgment. On appeal, Defendants argued Plaintiff failed to join the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), which was an indispensable party. In response, Plaintiff argued their claim was only to compel Defendants to comply with Defendant’s own Amended Correct Findings of Fact and Order of Determination (the ACFFOD) and that the Bureau’s interests were not directly related to the ACFFOD. Under ORCP 29 B, if, after weighing whether the absent party would be subject to a prejudicial judgment, the extent a prejudicial judgment can be avoided, whether a judgment would be adequate, and whether the Plaintiff has another adequate remedy available, if a judgment cannot be made “in equity and good conscience,” the party would be indispensable. The Court reasoned that the Bureau was a necessary party because Plaintiff’s requested remedy could not be fulfilled without impeding the Bureau’s statutory obligations. Further, Plaintiff was already an intervenor in federal actions for the same issues so after weighing the ORCP 29 B balancing test, the Court held that the Bureau was an indispensable party and the grant of summary judgment was improper. Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.