Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05752/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05752-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 

Case No. ED CV 16-726 DMG (Ex) Date May 18, 2016 

 

Title John D. Sanders, et al. v. Monsanto Company Page 1 of 1 

CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT 

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED 

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter 

 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) 

None Present None Present 

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CLAIMS IN 

THIS MULTI-PLAINTIFF ACTION SHOULD NOT BE SEVERED 

 

On April 19, 2016, Plaintiffs John D. Sanders and Frank Tanner filed a complaint against 

Defendant Monsanto Company alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach warranty claims. 

[Doc. # 1.] 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) permits the joinder of plaintiffs in one action where 

(1) the right to relief asserted by each plaintiff arises out of or relates to the same transaction or 

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) a question of law or fact common to 

all parties arises in the action. Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997). If 

plaintiffs fail to meet both of these requirements, the Court may sever the misjoined plaintiff so 

long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance. See id. at 1350 (citing Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 21). 

 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why Sanders’ and Tanners’ claims 

should not be severed from each other under Rule 20. Plaintiffs shall file their response by May 

25, 2016. Monsanto shall file its reply by June 1, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 3:16-cv-05752-VC Document 40 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 1