If a party is indispensable and cannot be joined, the court may:

• A. Dismiss the case entirely
• B. Dismiss the action if indispensable, or proceed if not indispensable
• C. Stay proceedings indefinitely
• D. Transfer to another jurisdiction

Answer: (B)

When a party is indispensable and cannot be joined, the court must decide whether the action can proceed without that party or must be dismissed. Under the applicable joinder rule, if joining the indispensable party is not feasible, the court weighs whether the case can move forward among the existing parties or must be dismissed. If the missing party is indispensable, dismissal is required; if the missing party is not indispensable, the case may proceed in their absence, with the court possibly shaping relief to avoid prejudice. The decision rests on factors like whether a judgment would prejudice the absent party, whether complete relief can be accorded without that party, and whether any party would have an adequate remedy if the case were dismissed. In short, the court’s options reflect the balance: dismiss the action if the party is indispensable, or proceed if the party is not indispensable. The other choices—staying proceedings indefinitely or transferring jurisdiction—do not align with this framework.