Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00802/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00802-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Damon Kizzee, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Walmart, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0802-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On April 12, 2010, Plaintiff Damon Kizzee filed a complaint against Walmart, Inc.

Doc. 1. The Court entered a case management order on November 23, 2010 setting the

deadline for joining parties 30 days after the order. Doc. 24. On December 22, 2010,

Tiffany Simpson filed a motion to join the case as co-Plaintiff asserting discrimination by

Defendant. Doc. 25. Defendant opposes on grounds that Ms. Simpson has no valid right of

action against Defendant. Doc. 26. Ms. Simpson has not filed a reply.

A person seeking to permissively join a pending action must assert at a minimum

(1) a right to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions

or occurrences as the pending action, and (2) common questions of law or fact with the

pending action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.

1997). Under Rule 20(a), joinder is permissive and a court may consider additional factors

such as “possible prejudice that may result to any of the parties in the litigation, the delay of

the moving party in seeking an amendment to [the] pleadings, the motive that the moving

party has in seeking such amendment, the closeness of the relationship between the new and

Case 2:10-cv-00802-DGC Document 33 Filed 03/04/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court does not make a finding of fact as to the relationship between Plaintiff and Ms.

Simpson.

- 2 -

the old parties, the effect of an amendment on the court’s jurisdiction, [the] new party’s

notice of the pending action,” judicial economy, delay to the case, inconvenience, and

expense. Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980); see

Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1351.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that Ms. Simpson’s claims arose out of the

same transaction and shared common issues with Plaintiff’s action, the Court will deny the

motion for joinder on prudential grounds. Defendant asserts that Ms. Simpson is Plaintiff’s

wife (Doc. 26 at 19), an assertion that Ms. Simpson has not disputed. Assuming the assertion

as true, Ms. Simpson should have been aware of Plaintiff’s suit and could have joined

earlier.1

 Moreover, Defendant asserts that Ms. Simpson’s separate suit against Defendant

was dismissed on June 1, 2010 for failure to state a claim, that she failed to amend her

complaint within the timeline set by the court order, and that she failed to appeal the

dismissal. Doc. 26 at 2. This assertion is borne out by the record in Simpson v. Walmart,

No. CV 10-0836-MHB. Although the dismissal was without prejudice (CV 10-0836-MHB

Doc. 7), the record also shows that Ms. Simpson’s motion for relief from judgment was

denied and her case was not reopened (CV 10-0836-MHB Doc. 13). Finally, the schedule

in the present case would be delayed if the Court were to add a new plaintiff at this stage of

the litigation. Fact discovery is due by March 25, 2011 (Doc. 24), and Ms. Simpson has not

shown diligence so as to convince the Court that the schedule would not be delayed.

Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for joinder (Doc. 25) is denied.

DATED this 4th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00802-DGC Document 33 Filed 03/04/11 Page 2 of 2