Aguilar et al v. City of Los Angeles

Filing 10

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Improper Joinder by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause in writing no later than September 3, 2014 why the Court should not dismiss all Plaintiffs other than the first-named Plaintiff, Juan Aguilar, due to improper joinder. If Plaintiffs fail to respond by the above date, the Court will dismiss the other 102 Plaintiffs, without prejudice. (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) RE: ( Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/3/2014.) (lw)

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

CV 14-5633 PSG (JCx)

Title

Juan Aguilar, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Present:

Date

August 13, 2014

The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

n/a
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Improper
Joinder
Plaintiffs—103 police officers who worked for the Los Angeles Police Department
(“LAPD”)—filed this suit on July 21, 2014, asserting claims against Defendants the City of Los
Angeles and Does 1-10 for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 201, et seq. Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive overtime compensation they were owed
for missed “Code 7” meal breaks, work they performed before and after their scheduled shifts,
and time spent on certain time-sensitive tasks. See Compl. ¶¶ 23-29.
Plaintiffs were previously part of two opt-in FLSA collective actions that were decertified
because the plaintiffs were “not similarly situated with respect to [their] off-the-clock claims.”
See May 21, 2014 Order, Alaniz v. City of Los Angeles, CV 04-8592 GAF (AJWx) (C.D. Cal.
May 21, 2014); May 21, 2014 Order, Mata v. City of Los Angeles, CV 07-6782 GAF (AJWx);
Compl. ¶ 11. In light of that decertification, it is not clear to the Court that the joinder of
Plaintiffs’ claims is appropriate.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1) provides that plaintiffs may join together in one
case 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
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 14-5633 PSG (JCx)

Date

Title

August 13, 2014

Juan Aguilar, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

Although Plaintiffs have alleged, in a conclusory fashion, that the Rule 20(a)(1) standard is met,
see Compl. ¶ 5, they have not addressed the contrary discussion in Alaniz and Mata.
When parties are misjoined, the Court may dismiss the misjoined parties. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 21; Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (“If the test for permissive
joinder is not satisfied . . . the court can generally dismiss all but the first named plaintiff without
prejudice.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause in writing no later than
September 3, 2014 why the Court should not dismiss all Plaintiffs other than the first-named
Plaintiff, Juan Aguilar, due to improper joinder. If Plaintiffs fail to respond by the above date,
the Court will dismiss the other 102 Plaintiffs, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2