Fernando Lavin et al v. United Technologies Corporation et al

Filing 24

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Defendants' Motion to Sever plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, or, in the alternative, to have plaintiff's claims tried separately pursuant to Rules 20(b) and 42(b) 17 is hereby DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to renewal at the pretrial conference, currently scheduled for 5/4/2015. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-09384-CAS(JEMx)

Title

FERNANDO LAVIN ET AL. V. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 17, 2014

Christina A. Snyder

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEVER (Dkt.
#17, filed June 19, 2014)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of July 21, 2014, is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Fernando Lavin and German Sandoval filed this action in Los Angeles
County Superior Court on October 7, 2013, against defendants United Technologies
Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems, Goodrich Corporation (collectively referred to
herein as “Goodrich/UTC”), and Michael Zanutto. Dkt. #1. Defendants removed the
action to this Court on December 20, 2013. Id. The complaint asserts claims for: (1)
wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) retaliation in violation of public
policy; (3) violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et
seq.; and (4) violation of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), Cal. Gov. Code §
12945.2. Id. In brief, plaintiffs allege that they were employed by Goodrich/UTC
beginning in the mid-1990’s, until Lavin’s termination on September 1, 2012, and
Sandoval’s termination on October 7, 2011. Compl. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs allege that they were
both wrongfully terminated in retaliation for conducting a joint campaign to promote an
improvement in Goodrich/UTC’s production processes. Id. (Lavin) ¶ 28; id. (Sandoval) ¶
23.1 Plaintiffs also allege that their termination was the result of their requests for
1

The complaint’s paragraphs are not consecutively numbered. Rather, the
complaint is divided into three sections, the first containing allegations pertaining to both
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-09384-CAS(JEMx)

July 17, 2014

Title

FERNANDO LAVIN ET AL. V. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION ET AL.

medical and personal leave, as well as their contentious relationship with a
Goodrich/UTC supervisor, defendant Zanutto. E.g., id. (Lavin) ¶¶ 35-36, 55; id.
(Sandoval) ¶¶ 29, 44.
Defendants filed a motion to sever plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 21, or, in the alternative, to have plaintiff’s claims tried separately
pursuant to Rules 20(b) and 42(b). Dkt. #17. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 30,
2014, dkt. #19, and defendants replied on July 7, 2014, dkt. #20. After considering the
parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Joinder

Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims should be severed because their claims do
not have a common factual basis, and are therefore not properly joined under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The Court disagrees. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2),
permissive joinder of defendants is proper 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(a)(2).
“Under the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action
consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly
encouraged.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966). “Rule
20(a)(2) is designed to promote judicial economy and trial convenience.” Hard Drive
Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-188, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2011). If the Court
concludes that joinder is not proper, a court may “add or drop a party,” or “sever any
claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

plaintiffs, the second containing allegations pertaining to Lavin, and the third containing
allegations pertaining to Sandoval. Thus, the Court cites the section of the complaint
pertaining to Lavin as “Compl. (Lavin)” and the section pertaining to Sandoval as
“Compl. (Sandoval).” The first section of the complaint is cited simply as “Compl.”
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-09384-CAS(JEMx)

July 17, 2014

Title

FERNANDO LAVIN ET AL. V. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION ET AL.

As stated above, plaintiffs allege that they had the same employer, and were both
terminated in retaliation for jointly campaigning for an improvement in Goodrich/UTC’s
manufacturing processes, as well as due to conflicts with the same supervisor, Michael
Zanutto. Thus, based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court finds that joinder is
proper because plaintiff’s claims arise out of the “same . . . series of transactions or
occurrences.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Defendants resist this conclusion, offering
evidence outside the pleadings that, according to defendants, demonstrates that plaintiffs’
claims are unrelated and therefore not properly joined. The Court declines to consider
that evidence at this time because doing so would require the Court to delve into the
evidentiary and factual basis of plaintiffs’ claims.2 Such an inquiry would be premature,
in light of the fact that the discovery cut-off in this matter is December 15, 2014,
dispositive motions are due no later than January 20, 2015, and trial is not set to
commence until May 26, 2015. Dkt. #12. For the moment, it is sufficient to say that
defendants will not suffer prejudice from joinder that extends through discovery and the
filing of all motions.
B.

Separate Trials

Pursuant to Rule 20(b) or Rule 42(b), the Court may order that certain claims be
tried separately in order to promote judicial economy or avoid prejudice to any party.
Defendants argue that, even if joinder is proper under Rule 20(a), plaintiffs’ claims
should still be tried separately. According to defendants, trying plaintiffs’ claims
together will result in jury confusion and unfair prejudice to defendants. The Court finds
that this argument is also premature, for the reasons stated in Section II(A) above.

2

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ objections to this evidence are OVERRULED as moot
because the Court does not rely on that evidence in ruling on the present motion.
Defendants also object to evidence offered by plaintiffs in support of their opposition to
the present motion. Those objections are likewise OVERRULED as moot because the
Court does not rely on that evidence in ruling on the present motion.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

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

2:13-cv-09384-CAS(JEMx)

Title

FERNANDO LAVIN ET AL. V. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION ET AL.

III.

Date

‘O’

July 17, 2014

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, defendants’ motion is hereby DENIED. This
denial is without prejudice to renewal at the pretrial conference, currently scheduled for
May 4, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 4 of 4