Carol Richards et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al
Filing
38
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT DROP PLAINTIFFS OTHER THAN PLAINTIFF RICHARDS by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 8/30/2012. (vdr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Case No.
Title
Date
CV 12-4786 DSF (RZx)
8/15/12
Carol Richards, et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al.
Present: The
Honorable
DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge
Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Court Should Not Drop
Plaintiffs Other Than Plaintiff Richards
Plaintiffs are individuals whose homes have been foreclosed on, and they face
eviction from their property. (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 68.) Plaintiffs took out loans, from various
lenders, which were secured by Deeds of Trust. (Id. ¶¶ 8-16.) Plaintiffs allege that each
Deed of Trust was securitized and transferred to one of various trust pools for which
Defendant Deutsche Bank was trustee. (Id. ¶¶ 8-16, 18.) Plaintiffs sue Deutsche Bank
and the alleged servicers of the various loans, seeking to set aside the foreclosures and
alleging violations of state and federal law.
To join together in one action, plaintiffs must meet two requirements: (1) the
plaintiffs must assert a 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 (2) a question of law or fact common to all parties must arise in the
action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997).
The test for permissive joinder is not met in this case as each Plaintiff’s claim
involves a different loan transaction and foreclosure. Plaintiffs’ wholly unsupported and
speculative allegation that the various Defendants conspired to defraud each individual
Plaintiff, (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, 47), does not satisfy the requirement that Plaintiffs’ claims
arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences, nor does it obviate
the need for separate proof as to each individual claim. In addition, Plaintiffs will not be
prejudiced by having to pursue their claims independently.
The Court therefore orders Plaintiffs to show cause why all Plaintiffs other than
Plaintiff Richards should not be dropped from this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; PPV
CV-90 (12/02)
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Connection, Inc. v. Melendez, 679 F. Supp. 2d 254, 256-57 (D.P.R. 2010) (ordering
dismissal without prejudice for improper joinder of the plaintiff’s claims against several
defendants where the plaintiff sued numerous defendants alleging that they had each, on
independent occasions, violated antipiracy statues by illegally broadcasting programs for
which the plaintiff owned the licensing and distribution rights).
In response to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs other than Richards may each
file a separate action against any or all Defendants (so long as the allegations can be
asserted consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) with new
complaints, filing fees and a notice of related cases naming this action. The new separate
actions will be deemed continuations of the original action for purposes of the statute of
limitations. On receipt of the new actions, the Court will drop Plaintiffs (other than
Richards) from this action, and dismiss their claims without prejudice.
The response to this order to show cause is due no later than August 30. Failure to
respond to this Order to Show Cause by that date will result in the dropping of all
Plaintiffs other than Richards.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (12/02)
MEMORANDUM
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?