SM Global Union v. Malphurs et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 7 MOTION to Sever Judgment Against Roberts and Williams. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(kcarr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SM GLOBAL UNION, LLC,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
§
§

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0535

§
§

WILLIAM LEONARD ROBERTS I1
p/k/a RICK ROSS, JUAQUIN
§
MALPHURS p/k/a WAKA FLOCKA, and §
ROBERT WILLIAMS p/k/a MEEK MILL, §
Defendants.

§
§

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff SM Global Union, LLC' s Motion to Sever
Judgment Entered Against Roberts and Williams (Document No. 7) .
Having carefully considered the motion, response, reply, and
applicable law, the Court concludes as follows.
Backsround
In October, 2012, Plaintiff, a promoter of live musical
performances, filed suit in Texas state court against Defendants
Jauquin Malphurs p/k/a Waka Flaka ('Malphurs"),

William Leonard

Roberts, I1 p/k/a Rick Ross ("Roberts"),and Robert Williams p/k/a
Meek Mill

('Williams")

for breach of contract and other claims

regarding their performance at a concert in North Carolina.'

Plaintiff also alleges the following causes of action
against Defendants:
(1) fraud and fraudulent inducement,
(2) quantum meruit, and (3) promissory estoppel. Document No. I.,
ex. C1 at 6-7 (Orig. Pet.).

Plaintiff obtained a Default Judgment against all Defendants
on February 6, 2013. Within 30 days thereafter, Defendant Malphurs
filed a Notice of Special Appearance and Motion to Set Aside
Default Judgment and for New Trial, and filed in this Court a
Notice of

ern oval.^

Plaintiff now moves to sever the judgment

entered against Roberts and Williams pursuant to Rule 21 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
11.

Discussion

Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
the court may "sever any claim against a party." FED.R. CIV. P. 21.
The Fifth Circuit has explained the effect of a Rule 21 severance:
Severance under Rule 21 creates two separate actions or
suits where previously there was but one. Where a single
claim is severed out of a suit, it proceeds as a
discrete, independent action, and a court may render a
final, appealable judgment in either one of the resulting
two actions notwithstanding the continued existence of
unresolved claims in the other.

Document No. 1, ex. C2 at 11-14 J
The state-court
judgment imposed on all three Defendants joint and several
liability for: (1) actual damages in the amount of $326,987;
(2) exemplary damages in the amount of $653,974; (3) prejudgment
interest at 5% per annum from the date of filing; (4) reasonable
attorney's fees in the amount of $15,624; (5) costs of court; and
(6) post-judgment interest on items 1 through 3 at 5% per annum.

I.
d
Document No. 1, ex. C3 at 2-4.

Allied Elevator, Inc. v. E. Tex. State Bank, 965 F.2d 34, 36 (5th
Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. OINeil, 709 F.2d 361, 368 (5th
Cir. 1983)).
The court has broad discretion to grant or deny a severance.
OINeil, 709 F.2d at 367; Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d
500, 505 (5th Cir. 1994) . When determining whether severance is
proper, courts look to a variety of factors including whether
severance would cure misjoinder of parties; severance would avoid
prejudice against a party; the claims are closely related, arise
out of the same transaction or occurrence, or present a common
question of law or fact; different witnesses and documentary proof
are required for separate claims; and judicial economy would be
promoted.

See, e.g., OINeil, 709 F.2d at 369 (granting severance

and explaining that the primary, though not only, function of Rule
21 is to cure misjoinder of parties); In re S. Scrap Material Co.,
713 F. Supp. 2d 568, 588

(E.D. La. 2010)

(granting severance

because the claims were largely unrelated, did not arise out of the
same transaction or occurrence, would likely require different
evidence and witnesses, and rested on separate legal theories);
Baushman v. Lee Cnty., Miss., 554 F. Supp. 2d 652, 654 (N.D. Miss.
2008) (granting severance because the claims required different
fact

witnesses

Henderson v. AT

and
&

individualized proof

regarding

damages);

T Corp., 918 F. Supp. 1059, 1062-63 (S.D. Tex

1996) (granting severance because of the likelihood of prejudice,

potential confusion of the jury, and highly individualized claims),
abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Holmes v. Energy

Caterinq Servs., L.L.C., 270 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Tex. 2003).
Plaintiff argues that because Roberts and Williams did not
timely move to set aside the default judgment against them, the
judgment is final as to those two Defendants. Defendant Malphurs,
citing Frow v. DeLaVeqa, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872), argues that the
judgment is not final as to any defendant against whom joint and
several liability is sought so long as it is not final as to him,
and that Roberts and Williams may not be severed until his motion
to overturn the default judgment is resolved.
Defendants

each

entered

into

a

separate

Plaintiff to perform a concert in North Carolina.

contract

with

The terms of

each contract were essentially identical and had as its common
subject the concert.

The only significant difference between each

Defendant's contract is the varying compensation each would receive
for the performance.'

The claims against Malphurs, Roberts, and

Williams present a common question of law or fact, involve the same
subject matter, and no reason is apparent for them to be severed,
especially on the motion of the Plaintiff, which chose to sue all

Document No. 1, ex. C1 at 4-5.

three Defendants in one case and sought joint and several liability
against them.

The motion to sever will therefore be denied.6
111.

Order

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff SM Global Union, LLCfs Motion to Sever
Judgment Entered Against Roberts and Williams (Document No. 7) is
DENIED.
The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to
all parties of record.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this

d

3

~

a of June. 2013.
y

C

WING WERLEIN, JR.

The oddity here is that judgment was entered against all
three Defendants before the case was removed. This ruling does not
preclude Plaintiff from moving to finalize the judgment as to
Defendants Roberts and Williams under Rule 54 (b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. but that, of course, may require a
different judgment so as not to cause prejudice to Defendant
Malphurs .