Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00099/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00099-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-00098 SI; No. C 04-0099 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SEVER CASES FOR

TRIAL; SETTING TRIAL DATES

On May 19, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on defendant’s motions to sever plaintiffs’

cases for trial in this case and the related case of White et al. v. FedEx Corporation, C 04-0099 SI. After

careful consideration of the parties’ papers and the arguments of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS

defendant’s motions and ORDERS that the remaining ten plaintiffs in these two cases shall have

separate trials.

DISCUSSION

As a result of the Court’s summary judgment orders, plaintiffs Munoz, White, Gibbs, Azzam,

Paogofie, and Wilkerson no longer have any viable claims. Ten plaintiffs remain in these two actions:

Neely, Evans, Brown, Walker, Lewis, Duenas, Theodore, Boswell, Alvarado and Rivera. FedEx has

moved to sever plaintiffs’ cases for trial, contending that if the cases are combined in any fashion it will

result in undue prejudice to FedEx and will confuse the jury. Plaintiffs oppose the motions, arguing that

a single trial is in the interest of judicial economy and the convenience of the parties and witnesses.

The Court concludes that although ten separate trials will impose significant burdens on the

Court’s resources, the interests of fairness dictate that the Court hold ten separate trials. As an initial

Case 3:04-cv-00099-SI Document 238 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

matter, the Court notes that as a result of the various summary judgment orders, most of the plaintiffs

have very few, and very narrow, remaining claims. For example, plaintiff Rivera’s remaining claim

challenges discipline he received, plaintiff Neely’s remaining claim concerns retaliation, and plaintiff

Alvarado challenges assignments and retaliation. Other plaintiffs, such as Lewis, Theodore and

Boswell, have a greater number of remaining claims involving promotions, discipline, sexual

harassment, racially hostile work environment, and termination. 

Contrary to plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement at the hearing, there are no “pattern and practice”

claims remaining in this case. As such, the Court does not envision a need for much evidence

concerning background or general FedEx practices and policies, and instead the evidence at trial will

largely be specific to each plaintiff. The Court agrees with FedEx’s estimate that most, if not all, of

plaintiffs’ trials will take a total of three days, and some plaintiffs’ trials (particularly those with one or

two claims remaining) should require less time. 

In light of the disparate and fragmented nature of plaintiffs’ remaining claims, the Court is

persuaded that combining the cases for trial would prejudice FedEx. Jurors would be presented with

a “parade of horribles,” in which the whole may very well be greater than the sum of its parts. See

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(b). Further,

consolidating the cases for trial poses a substantial risk of juror confusion because the jury will have to

examine each plaintiff’s employment history and the reasons given by FedEx for the adverse

employment action or allegedly hostile work environment. See Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1272. 

 At the May 19, 2006 hearing, the parties stated that the possibility of settlement was nonexistent. Accordingly the Court sets the following trial schedule:

August 7, 2006 Edward Alvarado

September 5, 2006 Kevin Neely

September 11, 2006 Charlotte Boswell

September 18, 2006 Dyronn Theodore

November 6, 2006 Pernell Evans

November 13, 2006 Janice Lewis

November 20, 2006 Tanda Brown

Case 3:04-cv-00099-SI Document 238 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Although the motion was filed in both cases, defendant’s motion does not appear on the docket

in White et al. v. FedEx, 04-0099 SI.

3

January 2, 2007 Alexander Rivera

If the parties agree to changes in this schedule, they may do so by stipulation; otherwise, plaintiffs’ trials

shall proceed according to this schedule. The Court shall schedule the trials for the remaining two

plaintiffs, Lasonia Walker and Bertha Duenas, at a later date and as the Court’s calendar permits. At

the June 9, 2006 case management conference, the Court shall set further dates for pretrial conferences,

and address any other issues relating to the scheduling of plaintiffs’ trials.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s

motions to sever plaintiffs’ claims for trial. (Docket No. 373).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00099-SI Document 238 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 3