Jeffery Howe et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 27

MINUTES OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson: Based on the factual allegations in the Complaint, it does not appear that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Honda and Bank of America arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. T he Court therefore orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing, no later than 12/2/2011, 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. Court Reporter: N/A. (gk)

SEND

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

CV 11-6992 PA (MANx)

Title

Jeffery Howe, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

November 17, 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 Jeffery Howe and Cheryl Howe (collectively
“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs have sued defendants Bank of America Corporation, American Honda Finance
Corporation, TransUnion LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services,
LLC, and Does 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”) under various provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (“FCRA”), Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), and the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.
According to Count 1 of the Complaint, Bank of America improperly failed to credit a deposit
into Plaintiffs’ bank account, and thus Bank of America’s report to the major credit agencies was
inaccurate. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-15.) Plaintiffs do not allege whether the account is a joint account or on
what type of payment to Bank of America they were determined to be past due. Defendants also allege
that Bank of America’s collection efforts violated the RFDCPA.
According to Count 2, Plaintiffs leased a Honda vehicle, obtaining a loan from American Honda
Finance Corporation (“Honda Finance”). Honda Finance allegedly forwarded the payment information
to the wrong address with the wrong name, thus resulting in late payments by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
allege that Honda Finance entered into a settlement with them that was breach when Honda “failed to
remove the derogatories [sic]” from their credit profile. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) Defendants also allege that
Honda Finance’s collection efforts violated the RFDCPA.
The only factual allegations common to these claims appears to be that the derogatory
information was sent to the credit agencies (defendants TransUnion, Experian and Equifax), and that the
Defendants all allegedly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (Id. ¶¶ 18-25.) Plaintiffs do not allege
that the Bank of America payment or account is related to the Honda Finance payment or account.

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 11-6992 PA (MANx)

Date

Title

November 17, 2011

Jeffery Howe, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(b) governs joinder of defendants. It provides:
Persons . . . 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P 20(b). “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 factual allegations in the Complaint, it does not appear that Plaintiffs’ claims
against Defendants Honda and Bank of America arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. The
Court therefore orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing, no later than December 2, 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