with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series

of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. (2) Defendants. — Persons may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. (3) Extent of Relief. — Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant need be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. The court may grant judgment to one or more plaintiffs according to their rights, and against one or more defendants according to their liabilities. (b) Protective Measures. — The court may issue orders — including an order for separate trials — to protect a party against embarrassment, delay, expense, or other prejudice that arises from including a person against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party. History: Added February 2, 2017, effective March 1, 2017. Source. — This rule is similar to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Trial court is entitled to exercise consid- erable discretion in determining who should be joined or retained. England v. Simmons, 728 P.2d 1137, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 660 (Wyo. 1986). No aggregation of class action claims. — In a class action lawsuit, the claim of each and every plaintiff, whether named or unnamed, must meet the minimum jurisdictional limit, and aggregation of claims for that purpose is not permitted. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Blury-Losolla, 952 P.2d 1117, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 8 (Wyo. 1998), reh’g denied, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 21 (Wyo. Feb. 17, 1998). EQC and DEQ were proper parties to a proceeding challenging new water quality rules. — After the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council (EQC) adopted proposed revi- sions to Chapter 1 of the Wyoming Water Qual- ity Rules and Regulations, petitioner special interest groups filed a petition to challenge the new rules and named the Wyoming Depart- ment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as re- spondent; the district court erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the EQC was not named in the petition. The Supreme Court of Wyoming, held that both the EQC and the DEQ were both proper parties to this proceeding under the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-101 through 35-11-1904, un- der the joinder rules set forth in Wyo. R. Civ. P. 19 -21, the district court could have added the EQC at the time the issue arose without caus- ing any injustice. Freudenthal v. Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., 2010 WY 80, 233 P.3d 933, 2010 Wyo. LEXIS 83 (Wyo. 2010).