Opinion ID: 2758297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Intervention of John Doe Plaintiff

Text: During the pending litigation in district court, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to join a John Doe plaintiff. The district court denied the motion. We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend under the deferential abuse of discretion standard and will not revisit the district court’s decision denying Plaintiff’s motion. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999). We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that John Doe, an attorney admitted to the bar in Florida and admitted to practice on motion in Texas and Tennessee, was challenging a separate provision of law that did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrences claimed by Plaintiffs in their complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1)(A) (“Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: . . . they assert [a] right to relief . . . with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.”).