Graciela Gutierrez et al v. US Bank NA et al

Filing 8

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge George H. King:..Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, WITHINTWELVE (12) DAYS hereof, why all but the first named Plaintiff, Graciela Gutierrez (Ms. Gutierrez), should not be dismissed without prejudice to the institution of new, separate lawsuits.. (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS). ( Response to Order to Show Cause due by 7/10/2012.) (lw)

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

CV 12-4713-GHK (PLAx)

Title

Graciela Gutierrez, et al. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al.

Presiding: The Honorable

Date

June 28, 2012

GEORGE H. KING, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Beatrice Herrera

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause

On May 30, 2012, the twenty individual Plaintiffs in this action filed suit against seven
Defendants on claims arising from separate mortgages on thirteen distinct properties. The claims
include: (1) declaratory relief; (2) negligence; (3) quasi contract; (4) violation of the Helping Families
Save their Homes Act of 2009; (5) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (6) violation of
California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500; (7) accounting; (8) constructive trust;
(9) wrongful foreclosure; (10) to void or cancel trustee’s deed upon sale; (11) quiet title; (12) breach of
contract; and (13) civil conspiracy.
It appears that the Plaintiffs have not been properly joined in this action. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20(a) provides that individuals “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 of fact
common to all plaintiffs will arise in the same action.” See also 7 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1653 (2d ed. 1995) (Rule 20(a) “imposes two specific
requisites to the joinder of parties. . . . Both of these requirements must be satisfied in order to sustain
party joinder under Rule 20(a).”). Though “misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an
action,” we may sua sponte drop improperly joined parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; accord Bravado Int’l
Grp. Merch. Servs. v. Cha, No. CV 09-9066 PSG (CWx), 2010 WL 2650432, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 30,
2010) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 21 governs the misjoinder of parties and permits the court
‘[o]n motion or on its own . . . at any time, on just terms, [to] add or drop a party[, or] also sever any
claim against a party.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 21)).
We have considerable discretion in choosing to drop parties. See Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp.,
625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980). An accepted practice under Rule 21 is to “dismiss all but the first
named plaintiff without prejudice to the institution of new, separate lawsuits by the dropped plaintiffs
against some or all of the present defendants based on the claim or claims attempted to be set forth in the
present complaint.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks
omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, WITHIN
TWELVE (12) DAYS hereof, why all but the first named Plaintiff, Graciela Gutierrez (“Ms.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 12-4713-GHK (PLAx)

Date

Title

June 28, 2012

Graciela Gutierrez, et al. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al.

Gutierrez”), should not be dismissed without prejudice to the institution of new, separate lawsuits. See
Martinez v. Encore Credit Corp., No. CV 09-5490 AHM (AGRx), 2009 WL 3233531, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
Sept. 30, 2009) (finding that the claims of “19 Plaintiffs . . . arising out of distinct factual scenarios
involving mortgages on 15 separate properties . . . ha[d] not been properly joined”). Failure to timely
and adequately show cause as required herein shall be deemed Plaintiffs’ admission that they have been
improperly joined in this single action. In that event, the claims of all but Ms. Gutierrez, the first named
Plaintiff, will be dismissed without prejudice, and all Defendants except for the Defendants whom Ms.
Gutierrez alleges to be liable to her (U.S. Bank, N.A. and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP) will be
dismissed. The dropped Plaintiffs may then file separate actions, under new case numbers, against the
applicable Defendant or Defendants, should they choose to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Deputy Clerk

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

IR for Bea

Page 2 of 2