Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02763/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02763-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIKA MACIAS AND CYNTHIA

RICH,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14cv2763-GPC(JMA)

ORDER RE JOINDER; 

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO FILE

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT IN EXCESS OF PAGE

LIMIT PURSUANT TO LOCAL

CIVIL RULE 7.1(h) AND SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

[Dkt. No. 36.]

v.

MYRON LANGE,

Defendant.

On November 19, 2014, Plaintiffs Erika Macias (“Macias”) and Cynthia Rich

(“Rich”) filed a complaint against Defendant Myron Lange (“Lange”) for violations of

the Fair Housing Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Civil

Code section 51.9, California Ralph Act, California Unruh Act, Covenant of Quiet Use

and Enjoyment, and Invasion of Privacy. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) Plaintiffs allege

Defendant sexually harassed them when they were tenants of Defendant’s residential

rental properties.

On January 12, 2016, when Defendant filed two separate motions for summary

judgment as to each of the Plaintiffs, the Court questioned whether Plaintiffs were

misjoined and should be severed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 & 21. 

(Dkt. No. 38.) The Court noted that besides the same causes of action, the facts of this

- 1 - [14cv2763-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:14-cv-02763-GPC-JMA Document 45 Filed 02/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

case involve different plaintiffs, different rental units, and different time periods. Thus,

the Court directed the parties to address this issue. On January 29, 2016, the parties

filed their responses. (Dkt. Nos. 40, 41, 44.) 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”), “joinder of claims, parties

and remedies isstrongly encouraged.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383

U.S. 715, 724 (1966). Joinder of plaintiffs is permitted under the Rules if (A) they

assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising

out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1). If a party is misjoined, “[o]n motion or its own, the court may at

any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The court has

discretion to sever a party as long as “no substantial right will be prejudiced by the

severance.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1349 (9th Cir. 1997). Rule 20 is to

be construed liberally to promote judicial economy and trial convenience. League to

Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir.

1977) (citing Mosley v. Gen. Motors, 497 F.2d 1330, 1332-33 (8th Cir. 1974)). The

Court must also comply with Rule 1 where the Rules are to be construed “to secure the

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 1. 

Plaintiffs argue that they are not misjoined because their claims involve common

questions oflaw orfact and meet the common transaction or occurrence test under Rule

20(a) because Defendant has a pattern of sexual harassment towards both plaintiffs

involving similar instances of sexual harassment which will require similar evidence

to prove. Moreover, keeping the parties joined would not create prejudice against

Defendant and will reduce the costs and burden of two similar trials, both of which

would be bench trials because neither party requested a jury trial. 

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs should be severed because the elements of

Rule 20(a) are not met. He argues that there are no common factual allegations as the

- 2 - [14cv2763-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:14-cv-02763-GPC-JMA Document 45 Filed 02/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

case involves two separate rental properties and different allegations of sexual

harassment. Rich’s alleged encounters with Defendant occurred outside her home

while Macias’ alleged encounters occurred when she was working for Defendant at his

home or one of his rental properties, or at his home for some other purpose. The time

periods are also distinct. Macias was a tenant from about 2001 to 2013 and she alleged

the harassment occurred from2006 to 2013, whileRich is a current tenant and has been

renting from Defendant since 2011 and the alleged sexual harassment occurred

between November 2011 and March 2014. Defendant also claims that Plaintiffs allege

different discriminatory conduct against them. Rich stated that Defendant never

touched her or made sexual comments towards her while Macias testified that

Defendant touched or attempted to touch her and made sexual comments towards her. 

He disputes the alleged sexual harassment and alleges that he would be prejudiced if

both claims, which he claims are weak, are brought together and bolster each other’s

claims before a jury. 

The Court’s concern about joinder was raised due to concerns on how the case

would be tried before a jury, including prejudice to Defendant. However, as Plaintiffs

noted, since there has been no jury demand, the case will be tried by the Court. 

Therefore, any concerns regarding prejudice to Defendant in this case are mitigated. 

See Carter v. Hewitt, 617 F.2d 961, 972 n. 13 (3d Cir. 1980) (“[n]onjury trials present

a much smaller danger of unfair prejudice than jury trials.”); Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d

217, 234 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting risk of undue confusion or prejudice from having

counsel testify as a witness not present in bench trials). In balancing Rule 20(a) with

Rule 1, the Court declines to sever Plaintiffs in this case. 

Defendant filed an ex parte application to allow the filing of two separate

motionsfor summary judgment that exceed the page limit pursuant to Local Civil Rule

7.1(h). (Dkt. No. 36.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 39.) Having considered

the parties positions, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s ex parte application to file two

separate motions for summary judgment. 

- 3 - [14cv2763-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:14-cv-02763-GPC-JMA Document 45 Filed 02/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall file his motions

for summary judgment on or before February 5, 2016. An opposition shall be filed

on or before February 19, 2016. Any reply shall be filed by March 4, 2016. A

hearing is scheduled on March 25, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 4, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [14cv2763-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:14-cv-02763-GPC-JMA Document 45 Filed 02/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4