White v. New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Company

Filing 62

ORDER AND REASONS denying 60 Motion to Dismiss Intervention Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(1). FURTHER ORDERED that 61 Defendant's motion to sever is granted. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 11/18/2021. (ko)

Case 2:19-cv-10389-CJB-JVM Document 62 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RYAN WHITE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 19-10389

NEW ORLEANS & GULF COAST
RAILWAY COMPANY

SECTION: “J”(1)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Intervention Pursuant to Rule
12(B)(1) (Rec. Doc. 60) filed by Plaintiff, Ryan White (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff’s motion
is supported a memorandum in support or alternatively motion to sever (Rec. Doc.
61) filed by Defendant, New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Company (“Defendant”).
Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in
opposition with citations of authorities be filed and served no later than eight (8) days
before the noticed submission date. Plaintiff set the motion for submission on
November 3, 2021. Although Intervenor, The Johns Law Firm (“TJLF”), has not
filed a timely opposition, the Court is still required to determine if the motion has
merit.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, if a district court solely has diversity jurisdiction
over the plaintiff’s claims, the court will not have supplemental jurisdiction over
claims by Rule 24 intervenors, when jurisdiction would be inconsistent with § 1332
requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). However, this Court has federal question
1

Case 2:19-cv-10389-CJB-JVM Document 62 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 3

jurisdiction over the present matter, not diversity, by virtue of Plaintiff’s claim under
Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss
intervention is without merit.
In the alternative, Defendant moves for TJLF’s claim to be severed. Rule 21
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants courts broad discretion to sever
parties, even if they are properly joined. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; see Brunet v. United Gas
Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Anderson v. Red River
Waterway Comm'n, 231 F.3d 211, 214 (5th Cir. 2000). “To determine whether
claims should be severed, a district court may consider the following factors: (1)
whether the claims arose out of the same transaction or occurrence; (2) whether the
claims present common questions of law or fact; (3) whether settlement or judicial
economy would be promoted; (4) whether prejudice would be averted by severance;
and (5) whether different witnesses and documentary proof are required for
separate claims.” Pizani v. St. Bernard Parish, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49628, *13
(E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2013); McFarland v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 63963, *3 (S.D. Miss. Sep. 6, 2006).
Here, different questions of law and fact exist for Plaintiff’s personal injury
claims for damages and TJLF’s contract claims. Moreover, severance would likely
not prejudice TJLF, who may still pursue their claims in the severed action. On
theother hand, not severing the claims may prejudice Plaintiff and Defendant by
potentially influencing the award of damages.

2

Case 2:19-cv-10389-CJB-JVM Document 62 Filed 11/18/21 Page 3 of 3

CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Motion to Dismiss
Intervention Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(1) (Rec. Doc. 60) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to sever (Rec. Doc.
61) is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of November, 2021.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3