In both Hotleva and Chehalis, the actions of the non-party would preclude the relief sought. In contrast, here the relief sought by the Plaintiffs does not require the non-party tribes to do or refrain from doing anything. For example, the Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the money earned by the Defendants only, not the money the tribes have earned, through the alleged scheme. FAC p. 40. The Plaintiff is not seeking a declaration that the contracts themselves are illegal, but rather a declaration that the Defendants’ conduct violates a number of state and federal laws.FAC p. 39. The Chippewa Cree were engaged in consumer lending prior to their partnership with Think Finance and, since the tribes are not bound by the outcome of this case, they would be permitted to continue that business. The tribes continuing their business (without the services of the Defendants) would in no way limit the relief the Plaintiffs seek. See Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 16 F.Supp.3d 605, 615 (M.D.N.C. 2014) (“[J]udgment…will not prohibit the lenders from lending money or from relying on other mechanisms to collect on their loans.”). The relief the OAG seeks is thus not “hollow.” The tribes are not required underRule 19(a)(1)(a).