Prout v. U.S. E.E.O.C.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN MICHAEL PROUT, Case No.: 23-CV-2105 JLS (DEB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. REGARDING JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS 14 U.S. E.E.O.C; SAN DIEGO COUNTY;

S.E.I.U; and COSTCO, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is the Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) filed by Plaintiff 18 Kevin Michael Prout. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, initiated this action and paid the required 19 filing fee on November 16, 2023. Plaintiff’s suit targets an eclectic combination of entities, 20 including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), San Diego County 21 (the “County”), “S.E.I.U.” (the “Union”), and Costco Mission Valley (“Costco”) 22 (collectively, “Defendants”). Costco filed a Motion to Dismiss (“Costco’s Mot.,” ECF 23 No. 10) on January 3, 2024, which has been fully briefed. The Union filed its own Motion 24 to Dismiss (“Union’s Mot.,” ECF No. 16) on February 12. Briefing on the Union’s Motion 25 is currently due by March 21. See ECF No. 18. The remaining Defendants have yet to 26 appear. See Docket. For the reasons that follow, the Court now VACATES the remaining 27 deadlines relating to the Union’s Motion and ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why 28 one or more Defendants should not be dropped from this case. 1 DISCUSSION 2 The Court is concerned that Defendants have not been properly joined in this action. 3 “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits . . . .” George v. 4 Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This principle exists to prevent “the sort of 5 morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s].” Blair v. Herrera-Salazar, 6 No. 319CV01261DMSKSC, 2019 WL 13448296, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019) 7 (alterations in original) (quoting George, 507 F.3d at 607). While the misjoinder of a party 8 on its own does not provide grounds for dismissing an action, a court may sua sponte drop 9 improperly joined parties at any point in the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. 10 The test for joinder applicable here stems from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 20(a)(2). That rule allows multiple defendants “[to] be joined in one action” if: “(A) any 12 right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect 13 to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 14 occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 15 action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)–(B). For the joinder of multiple defendants to be 16 proper, “[b]oth prongs” of Rule 20(a)(2) “must be satisfied.” Viral DRM LLC v. 17 Onyshchuk, No. 3:23-CV-04300-JSC, 2024 WL 189011, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2024). 18 The Complaint’s allegations, which are difficult to parse, reveal few connections 19 between Plaintiff’s claims. As far as the Court can tell, Plaintiff alleges the County violated 20 his constitutional rights by failing to provide him with a mail-in ballot. See Compl. at 5, 21 9–10.1 Meanwhile, Plaintiff appears to accuse the Union of depriving him of some 22 retirement benefits. See id. at 11–12. Elsewhere, the Complaint discusses a potential 23 negligence claim against Costco based on a 2021 “trip[] and f[a]ll” incident. See id. 24 at 13–14. Finally, Plaintiff mentions that he filed a formal complaint with the EEOC, 25 possibly relating to his struggle to receive a mail-in ballot. See id. at 5. It is unclear, 26 however, what wrongdoing—if any—Plaintiff attributes to the EEOC. 27 28 1 Upon review of the Complaint, none of Plaintiffs claims appear to arise from the 2 || “same transaction” or “occurrence,” nor does it appear that “any question of law or fact 3 ||common to all defendants” is likely to surface. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Accordingly, 4 || the Court finds Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 20. 5 CONCLUSION 6 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why one or 7 ||more Defendants should not be dropped from this case for improper joinder. Plaintiff 8 ||SHALL FILE a response to this Order, not to exceed ten (10) pages, within twenty-one 9 ||(21) days of the date on which this Order is electronically docketed. In his response, 10 || Plaintiff may, if he so chooses, limit his claims to certain Defendants and file one or more 11 separate actions—with new complaints and filing fees—against the remaining Defendant 12 || or Defendants. Failure to timely respond to this Order will result in one or more Defendants 13 || being dropped from this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21. 14 As the exact dimensions of this case will remain unsettled until Plaintiff responds to 15 Order to Show Cause, the Court also VACATES (1) the remaining filing deadlines 16 |} associated with the Union’s Motion; and (2) the related motion hearing currently scheduled 17 March 18, 2024. If appropriate, the Court will set a new briefing schedule for the 18 || Union’s Motion after the joinder question has been resolved. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: March 11, 2024 (een on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28