Six L's Packing Company, Inc. v. J. E. Beale Produce, Inc. et al

Filing 152

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Sever 137 is Denied. Plaintiff to file a brief with the Court as to the topics described above within fourteen days of the entry of this Order. Defendants response thereto will be due fourteen days after Plaintiff has filed its brief. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 3/19/12. (dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
SIX L’S PACKING COMPANY, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES ERIC BEALE and KATTIA
)
MARIA BISCHOFF-BEALE, each individually, )
and JAMES R. BEALE d/b/a SUNFRESH
)
FARMS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 3:10-cv-01132
Judge Nixon
Magistrate Judge Griffin
JURY DEMAND

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Six L’s Packing Company, Inc.’s Motion to Sever
Remaining Defendants and Determine Proper Amount of Fees and Costs in Connection with
Ruling on Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendant, James R. Beale d/b/a Sunfresh Farms
(“Motion”) (Doc. No. 137), filed along with supporting documents (Doc. Nos. 138 & 138-1). In
response to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant James R. Beale d/b/a Sunfresh Farms (“JR Beale”)
filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Sever (“First Response”) (Doc. No. 145) and an
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees & Costs (“Second Response”) (Doc. No.
150). For the reasons given herein, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Additionally, the Court
ORDERS the parties to file additional briefing with the Court, as explained more fully below.

I.

BACKGROUND1
This case concerns a series of disputed invoices for produce orders, with each party

bringing claims against the other. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment concerning
1

A summary of the relevant undisputed facts can be found in the Court’s Order resolving the parties’ motions for
summary judgment. (Doc. No. 130 at 2-6.)

1

the invoices. (Doc. Nos. 81, 102, 103, & 113.) On December 29, 2011, the Court issued an
Order deciding the summary judgment motions, ruling in Plaintiff’s favor as to all issues,
including that Plaintiff was entitled to recover amounts owed to it by Defendant under four
invoices and, based on a term printed on each of the four invoices, attorney’s fees and costs.
(Doc. No. 130.) Importantly, Plaintiff only moved for summary judgment—and the Court only
granted it summary judgment—as to a single defendant, JR Beale. (See Doc. No. 81 at 1; Doc.
No. 130 at 1-2.) Defendant subsequently filed a motion seeking to vacate the Court’s Order
(Doc. No. 132), which the Court denied on February 6, 2012 (Doc. No. 141).
Plaintiff filed the pending Motion (Doc. No. 137), along with an affidavit of Plaintiff’s
lead counsel (Doc. No. 138) and an attachment of Plaintiff’s monthly billing statements (Doc.
No. 138-1), on January 30, 2012. Asserting that that “Plaintiff combined two unrelated motions
in the same document” (Doc. No. 145 ¶ 1), Defendant filed multiple documents in response to
Plaintiff’s Motion. On February 22, 2012, Defendant filed his First Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion, addressing only Plaintiff’s request for severance. (Id.) Subsequently, on March 8, 2012,
Defendant filed his Second Response to Plaintiff’s Motion, addressing Plaintiff’s request for fees
and costs. (Doc. No. 150.)

II.

ANALYSIS
In its Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to sever the claims remaining in this case against

James E. Beale (“JE Beale”) and Kattia M. Bischoff-Beale (“K. Beale”) for trial, to determine
the proper amount of attorney’s fees and costs against JR Beale, and to enter a final judgment
against JR Beale with a determination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (Doc.
No. 137 ¶ 4.)

2

Defendant responds that this request for severance should be denied because Plaintiff
does not cite to any Federal Rule or case law regarding the propriety of severance. (Doc. No.
145 ¶ 2.) Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 as the basis for severing a claim, Defendant
argues that severance in this case would be improper because it would not promote judicial
economy at the district court level or appellate level, because it would prejudice Defendants, and
because “Plaintiff chose to join the Defendants when it filed the case.” (Id. ¶¶ 3-7.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 provides that, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court
may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party,” or “sever any claim against a party.” This
Court has identified several factors to consider when determining if claims should be severed
under this Rule:
“(1) whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or
occurrence; (2) whether the claims present some common
questions of law or fact; (3) whether settlement of the claims or
judicial economy would be facilitated; (4) whether prejudice would
be avoided if severance were granted; and (5) whether different
witnesses and documentary proof are required for separate claims.”
In re: Millennium Multiple Emp’r Welfare Benefit Plan, No. 3:10-00575, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
41466, at *29 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 15, 2011) (quoting Baughman v. Lee Cnty., 554 F. Supp. 2d 652,
653 (N.D. Miss. 2008)).
In light of these considerations, the Court does not find that severance of the parties and
the claims in this case is warranted. Plaintiff has not adequately demonstrated why severance
would be proper—indeed, Plaintiff has not provided any argument, instead devoting much of the
Motion to its request for attorney’s fees and costs. (See Doc. No. 137.) By contrast, Defendant
has raised sufficient concerns for the Court to consider severance to be unnecessary. Moreover,
due to the interrelated nature of the allegations, claims, and parties in this case, the Court does
not believe that severance would serve the interests of efficiency and judicial economy. Having
3

denied Plaintiff’s request for severance, the Court need not address the parties’ arguments as to
Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs as against JR Beale. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion is DENIED, with the option for Plaintiff to renew its request for attorney’s fees and
costs and the end of litigation.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s Motion has raised some concerns about the remaining course of
this case. As explained above, the Court entered summary judgment only against JR Beale, and
not JE Beale or K. Beale. While the parties previously filed a stipulation that JR Beale would be
liable for Plaintiff’s claims to the extent they were proven (Doc. No. 79; see also Doc. No. 80),
the fact remains that there are two other Defendants in this case against whom summary
judgment has not been sought or granted. Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint brings four claims against all parties (see Doc. No. 32 at 6-9), which is noteworthy
because Plaintiff did not seek summary judgment as to those specific legal claims.
In light of this background, the Court believes that it would be beneficial to clarify the
nature of the outstanding claims and issues in this case. As such, the Court ORDERS the parties
to provide additional briefing on the following topics: (1) the effect of the Court’s summary
judgment ruling as to the four specific claims brought by Plaintiff; (2) the issues, if any, that
remain unresolved as to the liability of JR Beale for the four claims brought by Plaintiff; (3) the
issues, if any, that remain unresolved as to the liability of JE Beale for the four claims brought by
Plaintiff; and (4) the issues, if any, that remain unresolved as to the liability of K. Beale for the
four claims brought by Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall file its brief within fourteen days of the entry of
this Order, and Defendant will have fourteen days to file a response. At that time, the Court will
determine whether a status conference as to these questions is warranted.

4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Additionally, the Court

ORDERS Plaintiff to file a brief with the Court as to the topics described above within fourteen
days of the entry of this Order. Defendant’s response thereto will be due fourteen days after
Plaintiff has filed its brief.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered this ___15th _________ day of March, 2012.

________________________________
JOHN T. NIXON, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5