Mandatory membership is governed by the Federal Civil Procedure Regulation 19, which requires the membership of certain parties. The parties that need to be brought together are those that are necessary and indispensable to litigation. The rule includes several reasons why this might be the case, even if that party has an interest in the litigation that it cannot protect if it has not joined. For example, if three parties each claim land and the first two pursue each other, the third party may not be able to protect the (alleged) interest in the property if it has not joined. Another circumstance is that a party may end up with inconsistent obligations, for example.B. it may be invited by two different courts to grant exclusive rights to the same property to two different parties. This is avoided by joining the parties in legal action. However, while the “necessary” parties must join if this Joinder is possible, the dispute will continue without them if membership is impossible, for example if the court is not competent for the party. On the other hand, if “indispensable” parties cannot be members, the dispute cannot be pursued. Courts have some discretion in determining which parts are essential, although the federal code contains certain guidelines.  Even if the absence of a decision on one contract resulted in another notice of decision on the other contract, an adjudicator should review both claims and attempt to establish a procedure to allow for timely consultation and, if necessary, a hearing. Not impossible, but the 28-day table could be in danger.
This also raises other practical implications, such as the right of the architect to take a position in the first decision. I see no evidence of this in the amendments proposed by Edward-Stuart J. to the TeCSA rules. Joining claims refers to the imposition of several legal rights against the same party. Under U.S. federal law, the joiner of claims is subject to Rule 18 of the federal civil procedure. These rules allow applicants to consolidate all claims they have against a person already involved in the case. Applicants can file new claims, even if these new claims are not related to the claims already mentioned; For example, a complainant suing someone for breach of contract may also sue the same person for assault. Claims may not be related, but they can be combined if the applicant wishes.
 Federal Civil Procedure Regulation 20 deals with permissive Joinder. The authorized Joinder allows multiple applicants to participate in legal action if each of their claims is the result of the same transaction or transaction and where there is a common question of law or fact that relates to the claims of all applicants. For example, many landowners may join together to sue a plant for environmental release on their property. Permissive Joinder is also fit to join several defendants, as long as the same considerations are met for membership of several complainants. This often happens in defective product disputes; the applicant will sue the manufacturer of the finished product and the component manufacturers.