Conway et al v. Chicago Housing Authority et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 11/9/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TIFFANY CONWAY, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 11 C 7257

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court’s memorandum orders of October 17 (“Order I”) and
October 28 (“Order II”) addressed several aspects of this pro se
action against Chicago Housing Authority (“CHA”) and a number of
contractors in the building trades, cutting the action back to
pitting one of the three plaintiffs, Tiffany Conway (“Conway”),
against general contractor Walsh Construction Company (“Walsh”)
and subcontractor Illinois Window & Glass, Inc. (“Illinois
Window”).

Now Conway and the other two original plaintiffs,

Joshua Bardney (“Bardney”) and Paris Miller (“Miller”), have
filed a one-page motion that points out correctly that the
original Complaint had advanced claims not only under Title VII
but also under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“section 1981”) and that neither
Order I nor Order II had spoken to the continued viability of the
latter claims.
True enough, but the fact that Bardney and Miller had each
been employed by different subcontractors -- Morfin Construction
General Carpentry Company, Inc. and Jerry and Sons Roofing and
Remodeling Company -- and not by Illinois Window created problems

as to their potential joinder under Fed.R.Civ.P.20(a)(1).
Moreover, even if such joinder were found appropriate, the
different facts applicable to each of the three original
plaintiffs would call for severance for trial.

Both of those

factors counsel strongly against this action’s maintenance in its
original multiple party format.
Because each of the three original plaintiffs appears to
qualify for in forma pauperis treatment, no material hardship
should be occasioned by requiring them to bring and pursue
separate lawsuits.

If they were to do so, the fact that the

cases would be assigned at random to different judges’ calendars
would still permit an arrangement that is common in this District
Court, under which a separate order could be entered in each case
to minimize (or even to eliminate entirely) unnecessary
duplication of discovery measures in the separate cases.
Accordingly the current motion is denied.

This action will

continue as one between Conway on the one hand and Walsh and
Illinois Window on the other.

In addition, it should be made

clear that the earlier dismissal of Bardney and Miller as parties
plaintiff was a dismissal without prejudice.

_____________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Dated:

November 9, 2011

2