MEMORANDUM

Kimberly and Craig Young appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claims against Regence Blueshield under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(7), and Rule 19 of the Fed eral Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court acted within its discretion in dismissing the case under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a required party.

1.

A party is a required party to an action under Rule 19 if “the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties” in the absence of that party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)(1)(A). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the “Preferred Providers” were required parties because the Youngs sought to require that the Preferred Providers (who would not be bound by a district court decision in this case) bill them at the lower rate. Because' this ground is alone sufficient to make the Preferred Providers required parties, we need not address whether the Preferred Providers “claim[ ] an interest” in the lawsuit under Rule 19(a)(1)(B).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the required parties (some 22,000 entities) could not feasibly be joined. See, e.g., Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship & Training Comm., 662 F.2d 534 , 536 (9th Cir.1981) (discussing how joinder of 4500 employers proved impossible). Finally, the Youngs have an adequate alternative remedy (administrative appeal) and the equities of the case do not preclude dismissal.

2.

Prior to dismissing the case for failure to join required parties, the district court dismissed the Youngs’ state law damage claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir.2009). Since the Rule 12(b)(7) analysis above also applies to the state law damage claims, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of these claims without reaching .the question of standing.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3. . Requiring Regence to rewrite its Subscriber Agreements to state clearly that the subscriber would be billed for services for which benefits were exhausted at the provider’s non-contracted rates would be a pyrrhic victory that would not provide the class "meaningful relief.” Cf. Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861 , 879-80 (9th Cir.2004). The language at issue in this case is, in any event, no longer in the Agreements.