WARMAN et al v. CEC CORPORATION

Filing 48

ORDER granting Defendant's 14 Motion to Sever. Plaintiffs claims are hereby severed for purposes of briefing summary judgment and, if necessary, trial. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 9/7/2011. (PG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

LONETTA WARMAN and KATHERINE )
)
MERANDA,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CEC CORPORATION d/b/a CHUCK E.
)
CHEESE,
)
Defendant.

1:10-cv-1477-RLY-MJD

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER
On November 17, 2010, Lonetta Warman and Katherine Meranda (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against CEC Corporation d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese
(“Defendant”)1, alleging gender discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). On January 31, 2011,
Defendant filed a Motion to Sever or, Alternatively, for Separate Briefing and Trials,
claiming that joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) is improper in this case
because Plaintiffs’ claims are not of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences and do not share a common question of law or fact.
Alternatively, Defendant argues that if the court does not sever the parties, it should order
separate trials to avoid prejudice to Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

1

Defendant notes that it should be identified as “CEC Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E.
Cheese.”
1

Procedure 42(b). The court notes that Plaintiffs neglected to respond to Defendant’s
Motion.
The court has broad authority to sever claims or parties under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 21. See Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000). In
deciding whether to sever, the court must determine whether Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of
the same series of transactions or occurrences. See FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a). Other than the
fact that Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant and present claims arising under Title
VII, Plaintiffs’ claims have nothing in common. Plaintiffs worked at two different
locations of Defendant, had different supervisors, and base their claims on a different set
of facts and legal theories. Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Sever
(Docket # 14).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
Plaintiffs’ claims are hereby severed for purposes of briefing summary judgment and, if
necessary, trial.

SO ORDERED this 7th day of September 2011.

__________________________________

RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
United States District Court
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Southern District of Indiana

2

Electronic Copies To:
Stuart R. Buttrick
BAKER & DANIELS
[e-mail]
Joseph C. Pettygrove
BAKER & DANIELS - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Kenneth T. Roberts
ROBERTS & BISHOP
[e-mail]
Andrew D. Schrier
ROBERTS AND BISHOP
[e-mail]

3