Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Idaho

July 30, 2015

JOHN D. BRIAN, individually; WILLIAM L. GOODMAM, individually; and DEBODEEP SANJU CHOUDHURY, individually, Plaintiffs,
WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ROBERT PEARSON, individually, Defendants.


B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.


The Court has before it a motion to sever. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion.


The three plaintiffs all worked at Wal-Mart's Chubbuck store. They allege that they were either fired or forced to quit due to the conduct of defendant Robert Pearson. Their complaint contains six counts against defendants Wal-Mart and Robert Pearson: (1) Race Discrimination; (2) Hostile Work Environment; (3) Retaliation; (4) Family Medical Leave Act Violation; (5) Wrongful Termination; and (6) Americans With Disabilities Act violation.

The defendants have filed a motion to sever the claims of the three plaintiffs, arguing that this single lawsuit should be divided into three separate lawsuits. The defendants argue that the claims of each plaintiff are sufficiently distinct that the requirements for joinder cannot be satisfied, and that it would be fundamentally unfair to the defense to proceed on all three claims at once. This motion requires an analysis of the claims of each plaintiff.

Plaintiff Brian alleges that Pearson "targeted plaintiff Brian due to his race [Hispanic] and his disabilities." See Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5) at ¶ 15. Brian alleges that Pearson retaliated against him for taking leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for disabling afflictions caused by Pearson's harassment. Pearson's harassing conduct, Brian alleges, eventually led to Brian being fired.

Plaintiff Goodman likewise claims that Pearson retaliated against him for taking FMLA leave for a disabling illness. Goodman claims he was eventually forced to resign due to his depression and severe anxiety caused by the "ongoing, ever present, and growing hostility he felt from... Pearson." Id. at ¶ 50.

Plaintiff Choudhury alleges that he was forced to resign due to the hostile work environment created by Pearson who was discriminating against Choudhury "because he was from India." Id. at 60. Choudhury also alleges that Pearson retaliated against him for reporting the incidents of racial discrimination.

With these allegations in mind, the Court will now turn to a discussion of the legal standards governing the defendants' motion to sever.


To join together in one action, plaintiffs must meet two specific requirements: (1) the right to relief asserted by each plaintiff must arise out of or relate to the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) a question of law or fact common to all parties must arise in the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a); League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir.1977). Generally, this joinder rule is to be construed liberally in order to promote trial convenience and to prevent multiple disputes. League to Save Lake Tahoe, 558 F.2d at 917. However, even if parties and claims have been properly joined, a court may, in its discretion, sever claims to "comport with principles of fundamental fairness" or avoid prejudice to the parties or jury confusion. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir.2000).

Focusing on the first joinder requirement discussed above - that plaintiffs' claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence (or series of transactions or occurrences) - there is no bright-line definition of "transaction, " "occurrence, " or "series." The Ninth Circuit has generally explained that this requirement "refers to similarity in the factual background of a claim." Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.1997). The Circuit has also suggested that claims arising from "a systematic pattern of events" could satisfy the same-transaction-or-occurrence requirement. Id. (quoting the district court opinion).

In Doe I v. Boy Scouts of America, 2014 WL 345641 (D. Id . 2014), a decision issued by this Court, sixteen plaintiffs sued the Boy Scouts and their sponsoring organizations claiming to have been sexually abused by Scout leaders. Four of the plaintiffs alleged that as members of a Scout troop sponsored by the LDS Church, they were abused by the same Scout leader on the same night. The other twelve alleged separate incidents of abuse at different times and as members of different troops. Despite these differences, there were enough similarities to persuade the Court to hold that the two requirements for permissive joinder had been met. The first requirement was met because the plaintiffs' claims all arose out of the same series of transactions, i.e., the alleged sexual abuse by Scout leaders with the actual or constructive knowledge of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.