1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, No. 2:22–cv–1689–TLN–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING

MISJOINDER

13 v.

14 ARBOR LODGING PARTNERS LLC, et al 15 Defendants. 16

17 On September 27, 2022, plaintiff filed a fee-paid complaint initiating this action asserting 18 ADA and state disability claims against the following four defendants: 1) Arbor Lodging 19 Partners, LLC dba Piccadilly Inn; 2) HIE River Park, LLC dba Holiday Inn Express Fresno 20 Riverpark; 3) Millenium Properties, LLC dba Hampton Inn Bakersfield; and 21 4) Nihal, LLC dba Holiday Inn Express Sacramento.1 (See ECF No. 1.) It is unclear whether any 22 23 defendant has been served, as no defendant has appeared or otherwise responded. Because 24 plaintiff’s claims against all four defendants contain sufficient factual differences, plaintiff’s 25 claims against defendants fail to meet the permissive joinder requirements. Accordingly, the 26 27 1 Plaintiff appears without the assistance of counsel, and so this matter was referred to the 28 undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be severed among the 2 four defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. 3 Legal Standards 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 sets forth the requirements for permissive joinder. 5 Plaintiffs may join multiple defendants in an action where a) any right to relief is asserted against 6 7 them arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and 8 b) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 20. There is no bright-line definition of “transaction,” “occurrence,” or “series.” Nguyen v. CTS 10 Elecs. Mfg. Sols. Inc., 301 F.R.D. 337, 341 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Instead, courts assess the facts of 11 each case individually to determine whether joinder is sensible in light of the underlying policies 12 of permissive party joinder. Id. (citing Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.1997); 13 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Permissive joinder is designed to “promote judicial economy, 14 15 and reduce inconvenience, delay, and added expense.” Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1350. 16 The court can dismiss a party or sever any claim against a party for misjoinder on its own 17 initiative if the permissive joinder requirements have not been satisfied, so long as no substantial 18 right will be prejudiced by the severance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 19 606, 617 (9th Cir.2012); Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1350. Motions for severance, whether brought by 20 parties or by the court, are non-dispositive motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (misjoinder of parties 21 is not grounds for dismissing an action). See Waterfall Homeowners Ass'n v. Viega, Inc., 283 22 23 F.R.D. 571, 580 (D. Nev. 2012), reconsidered on other grounds, No. 2:11-CV-01498-RCJ, 2012 24 WL 5944634 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2012). Therefore, plaintiff’s claims against each defendant 25 remain, but are heard separate from other claims. 26 //// 27 //// 28 1 Analysis 2 Here, plaintiff’s federal and state disability claims against all four defendants appear to be 3 based on a common question of law. However, the action fails to meet the permissive joinder 4 requirements because plaintiff’s claims against each defendant arise from separate occurrences 5 and are based on different facts. Plaintiff asserted claims against four defendants who have no 6 7 apparent contractual, agency, or other relationship. Plaintiff’s interactions with defendant 8 occurred on different dates. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) While some similarities exist among the 9 defendants (for instance, all defendants are places of public accommodation, all defendants 10 allegedly lacked an accessible passenger loading zone), the facts alleged that give rise to 11 plaintiff’s claims against each defendant are sufficiently different: 12 • The Picadilly hotel in Fresno lacked grab bars for the bathtub, a curb ramp, accessible 13 hallways to the laundry and exercise rooms, accessible doors to plaintiff’s room and 14 15 the public restroom, and adequate parking signage. (See id. at 2-3.) 16 • The Holiday Inn Express in Sacramento lacked an accessible check-in service counter, 17 doors, iron, hair dryer, and microwave. (See id. at 4.) 18 • The Hampton Inn in Bakersfield lacked accessible doors, iron, hair dryer, microwave, 19 and shower. (See id. at 4-5.) 20 • The Holiday Inn Express Riverpark in Fresno lacked an access ramp to a waiting 21 22 bench in the passenger loading zone, and lacked accessible doors and showers. (See 23 id. at 5.) 24 Maintaining all of plaintiff’s alleged claims against all four defendants in one lawsuit 25 would be unwieldy. Keeping the cases separate is required for effective case management and 26 administrative efficiency. This means that plaintiff’s case will proceed against the first defendant 27 listed on the docket (Arbor Lodging, LLC dba Picadilly hotel), and plaintiff’s claims against the 28 1 || remaining defendants will be proceeded with separately. The clerk of court will establish 2 separate docket numbers for plaintiff's actions against each of the defendants, and will include all ; of the docket entries in Case No. 22-1689 in each of the newly-created individual cases. Further, Plaintiff will be required to pay filing fees for each action against the remaining three defendants.

6 Given that the court is considering severance, plaintiff shall respond to the court’s order 7 | within 14 days either accepting the court’s proposed solution or explaining why this case should 8 || not be severed. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within 14 days of this order, plaintiff shall file a statement with the court indicating " why defendants should be not be severed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21; and 13 2. Failure to respond to this order, or failure to show good cause why this action should 4 not be severed, will result in severance, and plaintiff will have to pay a filing fee for the other three cases. Dated: October 12, 2022

18 —Frebl Alarm

KENDALL J.NE

19 || ss, gast.1689 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28