Kenney v. Japan et al

Filing 67

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson: Based on the Complaint's factual allegations, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants do not appear to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, given that there see ms to be little or no connection between most of the Defendants or the alleged harms. The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than 2/6/2012, why one or more parties should not be dropped from this case for improper joinder. Defendants may file their responses no later than 2/13/2012. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file separate actions against each of the Defendants, with new complaints and filing fees. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

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

CV 11-5341 PA (AJWx)

Title

John B. Kenney. v. Japan, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 24, 2012

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS – ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court is in receipt of a Complaint filed by plaintiff John B. Kenney (“Plaintiff”) who
appears pro se. The Complaint asserts eighteen claims against more than 100 defendants, including
Japan, the People’s Republic of China, President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney,
MI5, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Democratic National Committee, the Yakuza Syndicate, various cities and their police
departments, a number of banking institutions, and “two French stalkers” (“Defendants”). Plaintiff
appears to be alleging that these Defendants are engaged in a global conspiracy against him that
involves, inter alia, destroying his business, stalking him by helicopter, tapping his phone, reading his
emails, issuing him parking tickets, using his girlfriend to spy on him, and not accepting his ATM card.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), which allows for permissive joinder, provides that
“[p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against
them 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
defendants will arise in the action.” 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 similarity in the factual background of a claim.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.
1997).
Based on the Complaint’s factual allegations, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants do not appear
to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, given that there seems to be little or no connection
between most of the Defendants or the alleged harms.
The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than February 6, 2012,
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.”).
Defendants may file their responses no later than February 13, 2012. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file
separate actions against each of the Defendants, with new complaints and filing fees.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 11-5341 PA (AJWx)

Date

Title

January 24, 2012

John B. Kenney. v. Japan, et al.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2