Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 579 Filed 08/15/19 Page 14 of 153 compelling the spending of county resources – local taxpayer dollars – without bringing the counties into the lawsuit,” Judge Jones reasoned that “the fact that there may be some type of indirect cost to the counties in having to comply with the law is not the test at this point, as the focus of the Rule 19(a)(1)(A) analysis is whether the Court can provide complete relief among the parties presently in the case.” (Order, Doc. 68 at 63-64.) He further found that absent the assertion of an interest in the case by any county, the State’s argument was not relevant to the Court’s joinder determination under Rule 19. The court’s Rule 19 analysis in Fair Fight Action is persuasive and the reasoning is sound. “The purpose of Rule 19 is to ‘permit joinder of all materially interested parties to a single lawsuit so as to protect interested parties and avoid waste of judicial resources.’” Askew v. Sheriff of Cook Cty., Ill., 568 F.3d 632, 634 (7th Cir. 2009). In determining whether a party is “necessary” or “indispensable” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, the Eleventh Circuit provides the following guidance: Rule 19 provides a two-part test for determining whether an action should proceed in a nonparty’s absence. The first question is whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)-(2). Only if we can answer this threshold question “yes,” and if the nonparty cannot be joined (say for jurisdictional reasons), do we go to step two. See Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 8 (1990). Step two asks us to determine, “in equity and good conscience,” whether the action should go forward as cast. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). The Rule provides us four factors to consider. See id.; see also Laker Airways, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC, 182 F.3d 843, 848 (11th Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has instructed us in this step-two analysis to eschew 14