SeeSpaeth v. Michigan State Univ. Coll. of Law, 845 F.Supp.2d 48, 57 n. 13 (D.D.C.2012) (severing claims prior to transferring, per § 1404(a)); Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 132 (D.D.C.2011) ( “[B]ecause § 1406(a) contemplates the transfer of a ‘case,’ ... the claims must first be severed into separate cases ....”); accordWyndham Assocs. v. Bintliff, 398 F.2d 614, 618–19 (2d Cir.1968) (recognizing that claims must first be severed into separate actions prior to being transferred or retained under § 1404(a)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court i) severs Plaintiff's preliminary injunction because it involves factual events distinct from those forming the basis of the complaint, and ii) severs Plaintiff's Privacy Act claim because it is wholly unrelated to his FOIA claim.
The government's logic makes sense here because severance results in the creation of separate cases that are treated as "discrete unit[s]" from one another. See Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 762 F. Supp. 2d 18, 32-33 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Disparte v. Corp. Exec. Bd., 223 F.R.D. 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2004)); see also M.M.M., 319 F. Supp. 3d at 295 ("Severed claims become independent actions that proceed separately and result in separate judgments."); Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F. Supp. 2d 130, 132 (D.D.C. 2011) (explaining that severing claims creates "separate cases"). Hence, because Plaintiffs' Funds-related claims, once severed, become independent cases, the Court will evaluate them as such when applying the related case rule.
The government's logic makes sense here because severance results in the creation of separate cases that are treated as "discrete unit[s]" from one another. See Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 762 F. Supp. 2d 18, 32-33 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Disparte v. Corp. Exec. Bd., 223 F.R.D. 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2004)); see also M.M.M., 319 F. Supp. 3d at 295 ("Severed claims become independent actions that proceed separately and result in separate judgments."); Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F. Supp. 2d 130, 132 (D.D.C. 2011) (explaining that severing claims creates "separate cases"). Hence, because Plaintiffs' Funds proceeding, once severed, becomes an independent case, the Court will evaluate it as such when applying the related case rule.
Bonfilio's motion for leave to add parties seeks to add individual OSHA inspectors as defendants. The proper defendant in a FOIA case, however, is the agency and the agency alone. See Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 131 (D.D.C. 2011) ( [A] federal agency is the proper defendant in a FOIA action ...").--------
FOIA "confers a right on any person to receive [requested] records" subject to applicable exemptions. Feinman v. FBI, 680 F.Supp.2d 169, 173 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 153 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ). Whether the IRS "properly searched for and disclosed records to Plaintiff[s] in response to a FOIA request simply has nothing to do" with whether the Montgomerys took valid deductions in relation to their partnerships or even whether an informant blew the whistle on them. Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 133 (D.D.C. 2011) (separating FOIA claim against agency from constitutional claims as misjoined). The "nucleus of facts," Page, 729 F.2d at 820, that the Court will need to consider in adjudicating Plaintiffs' FOIA claim—i.e. , whether the IRS's search was adequate and its claimed exemptions appropriate—is wholly different from what the previous courts assessed—namely, the Montgomerys' correct tax liability. The present suit is, therefore, not barred by res judicata .IV. Conclusion
"[T]he only proper defendant in a FOIA action is a federal agency." Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 133 (D.D.C. 2011)(quoting Isasi v. Jones, 594 F.Supp.2d 1,4 (D.D.C. 2009), aff'd 2010 WL 2574034 (C.A.D.C. 2010)); Scherer v. U.S., 241 F.Supp.2d 1270, 1278 (D.Kan.), aff'd 78 Fed.Appx. 687 (10th Cir. 2003). In the screening order, the court found that the only named defendant in this case even associated with a federal agency was the "Judge Advocate General of the Navy," and that plaintiff alleged no facts establishing that this court has personal jurisdiction over this defendant or any of the other 5 named defendants, all of whom appeared to be residents of states other than Kansas.
II."'[S]everance of claims under Rule 21 results in the creation of separate actions.'" Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 133 (D.D.C. 2011)(quoting In re Brand-Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 264 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2003)); see Rice, 209 F.3d at 1014 n. 8 ("If the district court severed [the claims against the successor corporation] under Rule 21, then it created two separate actions, each capable of reaching final judgment and being appealed."). Accordingly, Continental's claims against Superior are severed from this action into one new case.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. “ ‘[S]everance of claims under Rule 21 results in the creation of separate actions.’ ” Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 133 (D.D.C.2011) (alteration in the original) (quoting In re Brand–Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 264 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1376 (J.P.M.L.2003)). Accordingly, Spaeth's claims against Michigan State University College of Law are severed into one new case; his claims against the University of Missouri School of Law and Brady J. Deaton, Chancellor of the University of Missouri, are severed into another new case; his claims against Hastings College of the Law and its Chancellor and Dean, Frank H. Wu, are severed into another new case; and his claims against the University of Iowa College of Law and its President, Sally Mason, are severed into another new case.
In this action brought pro se, defendant State Department (“DOS”) moves to dismiss the amended complaint or for summary judgment on the remaining claim brought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC § 552. See Order, 764 F.Supp.2d 130 (D.D.C.2011) [Doc. # 6] (severing Counts 1–9 of the Complaint and transferring the action comprised of those counts to the Middle District of Pennsylvania). Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and the relevant parts of the record, the Court will grant defendant's dispositive motion and enter judgment accordingly.