Alix Accimeus, et al v. Waste Management, Inc. of Flo, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Oragan Aristude, Neifaite Augustin, Chilert Deneus, Yves Remeus, Frandy St. Fort, Rodrique St. Juste and Cheneton Tilor. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion for reconsideration of panel order filed by Appellants Oragan Aristude, Neifaite Augustin, Chilert Deneus, Yves Remeus, Frandy St. Fort, Rodrique St. Juste and Cheneton Tilor is DENIED. [7636375-2]; Motion for extension to file response to motion filed by Appellee Waste Management, Inc. of Florida is DENIED as MOOT. [7656694-2]. (See 03/07/2016 opinion)(BBM/AJ/JEC) 14-12071X, 14-12073X & 14-13454X. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.--[Edited 03/07/2016 by DC]

Case: 14-12070

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12070
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cv-80723-KLR

RENEC ULYSSE,
MICHELET ALZIME
ANIVAN CENELIAN,
HAROLD COURAGEAUX,
PAUL DELVA
PIERRE DENEUS,
DUCOEUR DUMERLUS,
FEKEL EXANTUS,
PAUL FERTIL,
JOSEPH HENRY,
BERTHO JEANTY,
FRANTZ LAURENT,
ALEX MESIDOR,
JEAN MESIDOR,
WANES MILDOR,
JEAN BAPTISTE MONDESTIN,
JEAN EDY PIERRE,
BENOIT SAINGIL,
PASTEL ST. DUC,
RONES ST. JULIEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case: 14-12070

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 2 of 7

ORAGAN ARISTUDE,
NEIFAITE AUGUSTIN,
CHILERT DENEUS,
YVES REMEUS,
FRANDY ST. FORT,
RODRIQUE ST. JUSTE,
CHENETON TILOR,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA,
EEOC,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 7, 2016)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal concerns two separate groups of plaintiffs who seek redress
from rulings of the district court in their lawsuit brought against Waste
Management, Inc. of Florida alleging national-origin discrimination in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The first
group, which includes Oragan Aristude, Neifaite Augustin, Chilert Deneus, Yves

2

Case: 14-12070

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 3 of 7

Remeus, Frandy St. Fort, Rodrique St. Juste, and Cheneton Tilor, appeals the
dismissal of their claims in this lawsuit. Specifically, these plaintiffs appeal the
dismissals (with prejudice) of their individually filed actions, arguing that the
district court erred in severing and ordering separate trials for the 79 plaintiffs in
the original, jointly filed action. These seven appellants are properly before this
Court.
The second group includes 21 other original plaintiffs from the lawsuit
below, who seek to have this Court reconsider its prior order dismissing them from
this appeal. These appellants are not properly before this Court because they
already had an appeal from the final dismissal of their actions with prejudice.
After careful consideration, we affirm the district court’s ruling as to the first
group. We deny the second group’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s
order dismissing them from the appeal.
I.
We begin with the first group’s appeal of the district court’s severance
ruling. We review a district court’s decision on a motion to sever for abuse of
discretion. Weatherly v. Ala. State Univ., 728 F.3d 1263, 1269–70 (11th Cir.
2013). We will affirm unless the district court made a clear error of judgment or
applied an incorrect legal standard. Id. at 1270.

3

Case: 14-12070

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 4 of 7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 provides that “[p]ersons may join in one
action as plaintiffs 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). The central purpose
of Rule 20 is “to promote trial convenience and expedite the resolution of disputes,
thereby eliminating unnecessary lawsuits.” Swan v. Ray, 293 F.3d 1252, 1253
(11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). However, these considerations
can also cut in favor of severance. See id. For example, Rule 42(b) allows a
district court to order separate trials “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to
expedite and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Similarly, Rule 21 allows a
district court to drop a party or sever any claim against a party “on just terms.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
We consider several factors when reviewing a district court’s decision to
order separate trials, including: (1) the number of plaintiffs; (2) the similarity of the
plaintiffs’ claims; (3) the similarity of the defendants’ defenses to the plaintiffs’
claims; (4) whether severance would create delay and drain resources; and (5)
other courts’ success in holding trials with a comparable number of plaintiffs. See
Beckford v. Dep’t of Corr., 605 F.3d 951, 961–62 (11th Cir. 2010). District courts
have “broad discretion” in this area, and may grant Rule 42(b) severance to
4

Case: 14-12070

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 5 of 7

“clarify[ ] the issues.” Harrington v. Cleburne Cty. Bd. of Educ., 251 F.3d 935,
938 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
In employment discrimination cases, we have “urged district courts to take a
firm hand in ensuring efficient and clear proceedings on claims deserving trial.”
Id. (quotation omitted) (holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by
offering a plaintiff three case-management choices, one of which was holding
separate trials on the plaintiff’s race and sex discrimination claims). “Submitting
[a] morass of claims based on different grounds of discrimination to a jury could
overwhelm or confuse the jury, and separating trials in some way . . . is one way of
alleviating that confusion.” Id.
The district court held a hearing on Waste Management’s motion to sever.
At this hearing, the plaintiffs conceded that they all had different supervisors and
would receive different damages if the jury found in their favor. In granting the
motion to sever, the district court stated that severance was appropriate because
“[c]onducting a trial with seventy-nine Plaintiffs is inefficient, unmanageable, and
would severely prejudice Waste Management.” The court found that the plaintiffs
alleged “different injuries from different supervisors over different time periods”
and stated that the “jury’s attempted task of keeping straight witnesses, facts, and
evidence . . . is Herculean if not impossible.” The district court did not abuse its
discretion in granting the motion to sever based on these considerations.
5

Case: 14-12070

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 6 of 7

II.
We next turn to the second group of 21 appellants who seek reconsideration
of this Court’s prior order dismissing them from this appeal. This Court generally
has jurisdiction to review only “final decisions of the district courts.” Firestone
Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 373, 101 S. Ct. 669, 673 (1981)
(quotation omitted). This means “a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error
in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits.” Id. at 374, 101 S. Ct. at
673. The dismissal these appellants ask us to reconsider was entered because they
“already had an appeal from the final dismissal of their actions with prejudice.”
This group of appellants argues that the severance order and the dismissal of
their individual complaints after severance are two independently appealable final
judgments. That being the case, they contend that their appeal from the severance
order should not have been dismissed based on their earlier appeal of the dismissal
of their individual complaints. This argument misreads our decision in Hofmann
v. De Marchena Kaluche & Asociados, 642 F.3d 995 (11th Cir. 2011) (per
curiam). In Hofmann, we held that “[if] the Plaintiffs file individual complaints in
their actions and an adverse final judgment on the merits is ultimately entered, then
[an earlier] severance order may be reviewed following final judgment.” Id. at
6

Case: 14-12070

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 7 of 7

998. Hofmann does not indicate, however, that plaintiffs may bring separate
appeals of the final judgment on the merits and the severance order. Accordingly,
the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Waste Management’s motion to file
an out-of-time response to the motion for reconsideration is also DENIED as
moot.
AFFIRMED.

7