Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05531/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05531-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

 The Court notes the late-filed reply brief by Bayer and the attendant application for

consideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Regardless of whether the

Court considers Bayer’s reply brief, which is not required in any event, the result would be

the same.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVON JONES JR., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-05531 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

SEVER

Now before the Court is Defendant Bayer Healthcare LLC’s (“Bayer”) motion to sever

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers,

and having considered the arguments and relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing,

the Court hereby GRANTS Bayer’s motion. The Court finds the present motion appropriate for

decision without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Therefore, the hearing date of June 24,

2005 at 9:00 a.m. is HEREBY VACATED.1

 In addition, the Case Management Conference set

to follow the hearing is HEREBY VACATED and case management dates remain as set by the

Court’s previous order during the March 11, 2005 case management conference and as reflected

in the Civil Minute Order of the same date.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs first brought this action on behalf of themselves and others allegedly similarly

situated. When Bayer challenged the class action allegations, Plaintiffs did not substantively

Case 3:03-cv-05531-JSW Document 75 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 4
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

 In this regard, the Court takes judicial notice of the plaintiffs’ EEOC filings, as well

as takes into account the claims as set for in plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

2

object, and prior to Court’s ruling, elected to dismiss all class action allegations. Plaintiffs’

Second Amended Complaint now contains four individual plaintiffs with different work

histories, in four different jobs over different time periods, involving different legal issues

arising out of different causes of action, all involving different facts.2 As a result, Defendants

now move to sever the various plaintiffs’ claims.

ANALYSIS

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

“(1) the plaintiffs assert any right to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or

series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) there are common questions of law or fact.” 

Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). If the test for

permissive joinder is not satisfied, a court, in its discretion, may sever the misjoined parties, so

long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance. Id. In such a case, the court

can generally dismiss all but the first named plaintiff without prejudice to the institution of new,

separate lawsuits by the dropped plaintiffs against some or all of the present defendants based

on the claim or claims attempted to be set forth in the present complaint. Id. The determination

of whether severance is appropriate lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. 

Plaintiffs fail to satisfy both prongs for the test of permissive joinder. The first prong

requires the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and requires similarity in the

factual background of the claims. In this case, each plaintiff is alleging a different wrong – one

plaintiff claims that he was denied tools, another that he was not trained properly, another that

he was not promoted, and yet another that he was unfairly terminated. The only commonality,

the race of each of the plaintiffs and their subsequent allegation of discrimination, is insufficient

to create a common transaction or occurrence. Plaintiffs’ contention of an alleged practice of

racial discrimination is not sufficient to create a common transaction or occurrence.

Moreover, plaintiffs fail to satisfy the second prong of the test for permissive joinder,

that is, they fail to show that there exist common issues of law or fact. The “mere fact that all

Case 3:03-cv-05531-JSW Document 75 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the same general law does not necessarily establish a common

question of law or fact.” See id. at 1351. Plaintiffs’ claims deal with different work histories,

different jobs over different time periods, different legal issues arising out of different causes of

action, different standards for the relevant causes of action, different procedures, and different

facts. See id.; see also Second Amended Complaint and Bayer’s Request for Judicial Notice. If

the Court did not sever the matters, it would still have to give each claim individualized

attention.

Where the test for permissive joinder is not satisfied, the Court may, in its discretion,

sever the misjoined parties as long as not substantial right would be prejudiced by the

severance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1350. Here, Plaintiffs have not argued

that they would be prejudiced by severance, and instead contend that Bayer would not be

prejudiced by joinder. The Court finds that Plaintiffs would not suffer any substantial prejudice

upon severance and Bayer would indeed face the cumulative risk of prejudice by an unduly

biased jury if the separate cases were allowed to proceed together. In addition, judicial

economy is served by proceeding with separate discovery, separate dispositive motions

proceedings, and separate ADR efforts. The Court also finds that any discovery, especially, but

not limited to expert discovery, that is helpful in more than one of the newly-filed cases, should

, by agreement of counsel, be used in the related, but severed matters.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Bayer’s motion to sever pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 21 is HEREBY GRANTED. The claims alleged by plaintiffs Nathaniel Woods,

Dwight Dove and Haben Berhane are severed and dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff Lavon

Jones, Jr.’s case shall proceed under Case number C03-5531 JSW. Plaintiff Jones is HEREBY

ORDERED to file a Third Amended Complaint setting out the causes of action and facts unique

to his own claims by no later than July 15, 2005. 

In addition, the severed plaintiffs – Nathaniel Woods, Dwight Dove and Haben Berhane

– shall file separate complaints, if any, by no later than July 15, 2005. These complaints shall

relate back to the original complaint filed in this matter. Upon filing, the severed plaintiffs shall

Case 3:03-cv-05531-JSW Document 75 Filed 06/23/05 Page 3 of 4
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

3

 Should the severed plaintiffs re-file their separate complaints, the Court intends to

set the same case management dates as this matter, with the exception of the trial and pretrial

conference dates, which will, of course, have to be staggered. The filing of the new

complaint will trigger case management conference dates in which the Court will address

any remaining specifics.

4

file a notice of related cases with each separate complaint, enabling this Court to relate the

matters in order to continue to preserve court resources. The Court cannot yet set case

management dates in the severed and related (but as yet unfiled) matters, but intends to track the

same or similar dates in those matters with the case management dates already set out for the

remaining plaintiff in this matter, Lavon Jones, Jr.3 In that regard, the Court strongly urges the

parties to maintain their agreed-upon discovery schedule for the severed matters.

Lastly, the case management dates in this matter will not change, as set by the Court

during the March 11, 2005 case management conference and as reflected in the Court’s Civil

Minute Order of the same date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05531-JSW Document 75 Filed 06/23/05 Page 4 of 4