Lilian Yesenia Padron et al v. OneWest Bank et al

Filing 15

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE IMPERMISSIVE JOINDER UNDER RULE 20 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court finds it troubling that Plaintiffs have been radio silent in light of two Orders to Show Cause. But in considering Defendants' submissions, the Court DISCHARGES the March 18, 2014 Order to Show Cause and VACATES the hearing set for Monday, March 24, 2014. For the reasons stated in the Order, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE in writing by Thursday, April 3, 2014, why the Court should not order that Plaintiffs file individual actions. No hearing will be held. Defendants may, but are not required to, file a simultaneous brief addressing the Court's concerns and their position. Failure to timely respond will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution. (cch)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

LILIAN YESENIA PADRON et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 2:14-cv-01340-ODW(Ex)

v.

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER

ONEWEST BANK et al.,

TO SHOW CAUSE RE. SANCTIONS

Defendants.

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.

16

IMPERMISSIVE JOINDER UNDER

17

RULE 20

18

On March 18, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiffs and various Defendants to

19

show cause why the Court should not sanction each of them $1,500.00 for failing to

20

respond to the Court’s February 28, 2014 Order to Show Cause re. Lack of Subject-

21

Matter Jurisdiction. (ECF No. 12.) Defendants Meridian Foreclosure Service, IMB

22

HoldCo LLC, OneWest Bank, and OneWest Bank Group LLC responded to the

23

Order, indicating that they believed that only Plaintiffs had to address the Court’s

24

subject-matter-jurisdiction concerns. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.)

25

The Court finds it troubling that Plaintiffs have been radio silent in light of two

26

Orders to Show Cause.

But in considering Defendants’ submissions, the Court

27

DISCHARGES the March 18, 2014 Order to Show Cause and VACATES the

28

hearing set for Monday, March 24, 2014.

1

Even if the Court ostensibly has mass-action jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

2

Complaint under the Class Action Fairness Act, the Court is not convinced that

3

Plaintiffs have complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. That Rule provides

4

that multiple plaintiffs may join their actions together into one if “they assert any right

5

to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the

6

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and . . . any

7

question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ.

8

P. 20(a)(1).

9

A terse review of Plaintiffs’ 264-page appendix to their 121-plaintiff Complaint

10

strongly suggests that each Plaintiff’s claims involve different factual scenarios

11

triggering different bases for potential relief.

12

necessary to individually tell each Plaintiff’s story lends support to the conclusion that

13

it may be much more efficient and less prejudicial to Defendants to litigate each

14

Plaintiff’s claims separately.

15

example, the parties would realistically be able to address all 121 Plaintiffs in one

16

motion.

The fact that Plaintiffs found it

The Court cannot imagine a scenario where, for

17

The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE in writing by

18

Thursday, April 3, 2014, why the Court should not order that Plaintiffs file

19

individual actions. No hearing will be held. Defendants may, but are not required to,

20

file a simultaneous brief addressing the Court’s concerns and their position. Failure to

21

timely respond will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

March 21, 2014

25
26
27

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

2