J. The United States and the Respondent Group have previously settled with a number of Defendants in Consent Decrees entered in this case on April 10, 2000, June 19, 2002, July 13, 2005, July 9, 2007, and January 23, 2009. K. The United States has also commenced a related action against Saul Senser captioned United States v. Larry Katz et al., Case No. 3:05 CV 0058 (S.D. Ohio), alleging fraudulent conveyance of assets pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act ("FDCPA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 3306, 3307 and the Federal Priority Act ("FPA"), 31 U.S. § 3713(a), which is being simultaneously resolved in a Stipulation, Settlement Agreement and Order in that case, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix D. L. Defendants Saul Senser, the Estate of Saul Senser, ("Senser Estate"), Kenneth Senser as Executor for the Estate of Saul Senser, and Senser Metal Company, Inc. ("Settling Defendants") do not admit any liability to Plaintiff or to the Respondent Group arising out of any alleged transactions or occurrences at the Site.

NewsChannel 5 argues that the claims are, therefore, untimely. SeeUnited States v. Katz, 494 F.Supp.2d 641, 644 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (“Federal courts have uniformly held that a claim set forth in an amended pleading is timely under the applicable statute of limitations, if the motion for leave to amend was filed before the statute of limitations had run.”)

“Federal courts have uniformly held that a claim set forth in an amended pleading is timely under the applicable statute of limitations, if the motion for leave to amend was filed before the statute of limitations had run.” United States v. Katz, 494 F.Supp.2d 641, 644 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (collecting cases).

Broad discretion is granted to district courts to add or drop parties on the motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action if it is on just terms. United States v. Katz, 494 F. Supp. 2d 645, 648 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 21). The Supreme Court has explained that "[u]nder the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged."

Broad discretion is granted to district courts to add or drop parties on the motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action if it is on just terms. United States v. Katz, 494 F.Supp.2d 645, 648 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 21). The Supreme Court has explained that “[u]nder the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.”

Broad discretion is granted to district courts to add or drop parties on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action if it is on just terms. United States v. Katz, 494 F.Supp.2d 645, 648 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 21). Any motion to dismiss for improper joinder by a party, however,should be treated as a motion for severance, because the appropriate remedy for misjoinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is severance, not dismissal.

Lucas argues his claims are timely because I granted him leave to amend his complaint, and federal courts consistently hold that “‘a claim set forth in an amended pleading is timely under the applicable statute of limitations, if the motion for leave to amend was filed before the statute of limitations had run.'” (Doc. No. 36 at 9) (quoting United States v. Katz, 494 F.Supp.2d 641, 644 (S.D. Ohio 2006)) (Lucas's added emphasis removed).

“Federal courts have uniformly held that a claim set forth in an amended pleading is timely under the applicable statute of limitations, if the motion for leave to amend was filed before the statute of limitations had run.” United States v. Katz, 494 F.Supp.2d 641, 644 (S.D. Ohio 2006). As the court explained in Moore v. State of Indiana, 999 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1993):

As applicable here, the statute of limitations is tolled by the filing of a proposed amended complaint to add defendants accompanied by a motion for leave to amend. See e.g., Shillman v. United States, 221 F.3d 1336, 2000 WL 923761 (6th Cir. 2000) (Table); United States v. Katz, 494 F.Supp.2d 641, 644 (S.D. Ohio 2006). In addition, for claims subject to the PLRA's administrative exhaustion requirement, the statute of limitations is tolled while the litigant exhausts his administrative remedies.

nsactions or occurrences that constitute a “series” to have some substantial relationship to one another, and have explicitly rejected the argument that mere commonality among otherwise unrelated events is enough to make them part of the same series. See Michaels Bldg. Co. v. Ameritrust Co., 848 F.2d 674, 682 (6th Cir. 1988) (affirming severance and dismissal of misjoined RICO and antitrust claims where “the various transactions ... ‘involve different banks, different contracts and different terms'”); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Collins, 244 F.R.D. 408, 410 (S.D. Ohio) (“transactional relatedness element” of Rule 20 unmet where “transactions are logically related to one another” only “in the same way that purchases of milk from the grocery store are logically related to each other: each transaction involves a . similar good for a similar purpose”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Katz, 494 F.Supp.2d 645, 648-49 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (similar but unrelated fraudulent conveyances by different defendants in connection with government cleanup of single hazardous waste site did not form same series of transactions).