Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01633/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01633-2/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

LANDON WHITBY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14cv1633-LAB (BLM)

ORDER ON MOTION TO

vs. CLARIFY

CHELSEA INVESTMENT

CORPORATION, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint in this putative class action.

Among other things, the proposed amended complaint would have added two plaintiffs from

the Windwood Village Apartments, Daud and Shokria Nawaey. The Court gave leave to

amend to add these two new plaintiffs, but denied leave to add plaintiffs who live in other

apartment complexes.

Plaintiffs have now filed a motion for clarification (Docket no. 74) informing the Court

for the very first time that they have a related case pending in which the minor children of

some of the Plaintiffs in this case are themselves plaintiffs. The motion does not identify the

other case by name or case number, but it appears to be 15cv355-H (WVG), Ethan Whitby

v. Chelsea Investment Corporation. Failing to apprise the Court of this during the pendency

of their motion to dismiss was improper, as was their failure, and the failure of the plaintiffs

in the other case, to file a notice of related case. See Civil Local Rule 40.1(f). One of

- 1 - 14cv1633

Case 3:14-cv-01633-LAB-BLM Document 75 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiffs’ attorneys in this case is also counsel for plaintiffs in 15cv355, so obviously they

knew about the cases’ relationship. The Court also notes that in case 15cv355, the plaintiffs

are all minors, and no guardians ad litem are identified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17; Prudential

Ins. Co. of America v. Remington, 2013 WL 3070629, slip op. at *1 (E.D.Cal., June 17,

2013). Presumably their parents are serving in that capacity. See id.; Seibels, Bruce & Co.

v. Nicke, 168 F.R.D. 542, 544 (M.D.N.C. 1996) (in the absence of an appointed guardian ad

litem, parents are presumed to act in a child’s interest). 

Plaintiffs never sought leave in this case to add any residents of the Windwood Village

Apartments except for the Nawaeys. (See Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Amend (Docket no.

67), at 5:15–26; Proposed Amended Complaint (Docket no. 67-3) at 1, 4:12–5:20 (naming

plaintiffs).) Nor did Plaintiffs apprise the Court of the other pending action. The issue of

adding other family members was not briefed and Defendants were not given an opportunity

be heard. Therefore the Court did not grant leave to add any other plaintiffs. Furthermore,

because this is a putative class action, other residents of the Windwood Village Apartments

who are members of families with young children are already members of the putative class.

Why they would be bringing a parallel lawsuit, filed by an attorney representing Plaintiffs in

this action, and presumably under the direction of their parents — who are parties to this

action — is unclear. These multiple errors have put the two cases in a very awkward posture.

It may happen that case 15cv355 will be transferred to the undersigned judge

pursuant to this Court’s rule on related cases. If and when that happens, and if the posture

of the cases has not been set right already, the Court will manage the two cases so that they

can be properly litigated. But in the meantime, nothing prevents Plaintiffs from taking

appropriate corrective action, such as by seeking leave to dismiss or add particular parties

or claims in the two cases. If they do so, they should seek a comprehensive solution, rather

than attempting to make corrections piecemeal. They should also confer with opposing

counsel and, if possible, proceed by joint motion rather than ex parte.

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 14cv1633

Case 3:14-cv-01633-LAB-BLM Document 75 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 3
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

The Court believes this clarifies its order, and the Clerk is directed to terminate the

motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv1633

Case 3:14-cv-01633-LAB-BLM Document 75 Filed 03/05/15 Page 3 of 3