Short answer. Yes. The rule on joinder of parties lets the court issue orders preventing a defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in proceedings they have no interest in. If you were joined in a case over a transaction you had nothing to do with, you can ask the court to protect you from that burden.
What the law says
any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action
Rule 3, Section 6 — Permissive joinder of parties. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest
Rule 3, Section 6 — Permissive joinder of parties. Read the full provision →
Why you might have been joined in the first place
Multiple defendants can be joined into a single case when the rule's conditions are met. The rule allows persons to be joined as defendants where "any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action." Being named as a co-defendant does not, by itself, mean the claim against you is valid — it means the plaintiff believes a question of law or fact connects you to the same transaction as the other defendants. Whether that connection actually holds up is a separate matter from having been joined at all.
The court's power to protect someone with no real stake
The same provision that allows joinder also builds in a safeguard for someone caught up in it without a real stake. It states that "the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest." That language covers exactly the situation you describe: being pulled into litigation over a transaction that is not yours. The rule gives the court discretion to act, rather than leaving you to simply absorb the cost and inconvenience of a dispute that does not concern you.
What "embarrassed or put to expense" is aimed at
The rule's own phrase, embarrassed or put to expense, is broad enough to cover the practical burdens of being dragged into someone else's dispute: hiring counsel, responding to pleadings and discovery, and appearing in proceedings that have nothing to do with your own conduct. The provision recognizes that joinder exists to make litigation efficient for parties who genuinely belong in the case together, not to force an unrelated party to shoulder the cost of defending against claims that were never really about them.
Raising it with the court
The article leaves the specific form of relief to the court's discretion — it says the court "may make such orders as may be just," rather than specifying one fixed remedy. To invoke this protection, you would need to bring your lack of interest in the underlying transaction to the court's attention and explain concretely why you do not belong in the case. It is not automatic simply because you disagree with being named; the court still has to be satisfied that you genuinely have no interest in the proceeding.