Saif Hussain et al v. Coffman Engineers, Inc. et al

Filing 25

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing, no later than June 30, 2011, why one or more parties should not be dropped from this case for improper joinder. In response to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs may, if they so choose, file separate actions against Defendant, with new complaints and filing fees. (pso)

SEND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-1816 PA (MANx)

Title

Saif Hussain v. Coffman Engineers, Inc., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

June 15, 2011

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco
Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Proceedings:

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is a Complaint filed by plaintiffs Saif Hussain and Chandrakant Shinde
(collectively “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs have sued defendant Coffman Engineers, Inc. (“Defendant”) under
various provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, alleging that Defendant
discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their race, religion, and national origin.
According to the Complaint plaintiff Hussain is a native of Pakistan who practices the Islamic
religion, and was employed by Defendant between May 2001 and March 29, 2010. The Complaint lists
various hostile conduct and comments by Defendant’s partners, shareholders, and supervisors directed at
Hussain and his Islamic faith and practices. The Complaint alleges that Hussain objected to such
statements and was demoted in January 2010 as a result. In March 2010 Hussain’s situation became so
intolerable that he separated from Defendant’s employment.
Plaintiff Shinde is a native of India who practices the Hindu religion, and was employed by
Defendant between May 2008 and March 1, 2010. The only allegations in the Complaint concerning
Shinde are that he was told by a supervisor that he would work well with Hussain because of their
“similar cultural background,” and that he was terminated on March 1, 2010 due to alleged performance
problems.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1), which allows for permissive joinder, provides:
Persons 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. Proc. 20(a)(1); see also League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977). “The first prong, the ‘same transaction’ requirement, refers to
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

SEND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-1816 PA (MANx)

Date

Title

June 15, 2011

Saif Hussain v. Coffman Engineers, Inc., et al.

similarity in the factual background of a claim.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.
1997).
Based on the factual allegations in the Complaint, it does not appear that Plaintiffs’ joint claims
against Defendant arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. While the Complaint alleges that
Hussain was subjected to numerous negative remarks and other treatment based on his Islamic faith, it is
unclear what, if any, conduct or remarks were directed towards Shinde. Moreover, it appears that
Plaintiffs were terminated or constructively discharged on two separate occasions.
The Court therefore orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing, no later than June 30, 2011, why
one or more parties should not be dropped from this case for improper joinder. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18,
20, 21; see also Coughlin,130 F.3d at 1351 (finding misjoinder where “[e]ach claim raises potentially
different issues, and must be viewed in a separate and individual light by the Court.”).
In response to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs may, if they so choose, file separate actions
against Defendant, with new complaints and filing fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2