context: The district court also found that even assuming Visa were a necessary party, it was not indispensable under Rule 19(b). Since we affirm the district court's conclusion that Visa is a not a necessary party, we need not discuss whether the district court properly found that Visa was not an indispensable party.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 299 F.3d 139, 139
citation_a.parenthetical: "A party cannot be indispensable unless it is a 'necessary party' under Rule 19(a)."
citation_a.sentence: See Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. Kearney, 212 F.3d 721, 724 (2d Cir.2000) (“If a party does not qualify as necessary under Rule 19(a), then the court need not decide whether its absence warrants dismissal under Rule 19(b).”); see also Jonesfilm, 299 F.3d at 139 (“A party cannot be indispensable unless it is a ‘necessary party’ under Rule 19(a).”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 212 F.3d 721, 724
citation_b.parenthetical: "If a party does not qualify as necessary under Rule 19(a
citation_b.sentence: See Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. Kearney, 212 F.3d 721, 724 (2d Cir.2000) (“If a party does not qualify as necessary under Rule 19(a), then the court need not decide whether its absence warrants dismissal under Rule 19(b).”); see also Jonesfilm, 299 F.3d at 139 (“A party cannot be indispensable unless it is a ‘necessary party’ under Rule 19(a).”).