Sanders v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 13

Order by Hon. Edward J. Davila denying 2 Motion for Joinder.(ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

SIDEA SANDERS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
FACEBOOK INC.,
Defendant.

15

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
JOINDER
(Re: Docket No. 2)

the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.

18

I. BACKGROUND

19
20

Case No.: 5:11-CV-06645 EJD

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Joinder pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1). For

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On December 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action. Also on December 23,
2011, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Joinder.

21

On January 11, 2012, Judge Koh referred this case for the purpose of determining whether

22

it was related to the following cases: 11-CV-5699, 11-CV-5700, 11-CV-5701, 11-CV-5763, 11-

23

CV-5764, 11-CV-6367. On January 26, 2012, the court determined that these seven cases are

24

related.

25
26
27

II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1), persons 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

28
1
Case No.: 5:11-CV-06645 EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JOINDER

1

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (b) any question of law

2

or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.

3
4

III. DISCUSSION
The court is unable to determine from Plaintiff’s motion what joinder she seeks. Plaintiff’s

5

motion states that she “makes this request for joinder in this controversy, due to the efficiency it

6

would provide to this Court and the related claim within the class action already in dispute against

7

Facebook Inc.” Docket No. 2. Plaintiff, however, has not identified any additional plaintiffs she

8

seeks to join in this action. Thus, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to the court to

9

demonstrate that the requirements of Rule 20(a)(1) are satisfied. Accordingly,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for joinder is DENIED.
Dated: February 7, 2012

12

_________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 5:11-CV-06645 EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JOINDER