Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-08-1469.
September 23, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This employment case is before the Court on the Motion to Sever or, In the Alternative, Order Separate Trials ("Motion to Sever") [Doc. # 12] filed by Defendants Lennar Corporation and Lennar Homes of Texas L C, Ltd. (collectively, "Lennar"). Plaintiffs Rudolph Castillo, Jr. and Rosalyn White-Yeldell filed a Response [Doc. # 16], and Defendants filed a Reply [Doc. # 17]. Based on the Court's review of the record and the applicable legal principles, the Court denies the Motion to Sever and denies without prejudice the alternative Motion for Separate Trials.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs were both employed by Lennar in its Houston office. Castillo, a Hispanic male over the age of 40, was the Director of Construction. White-Yeldell, an African-American female, was a Quality Assurance Inspector. Plaintiffs allege that Lennar had a pattern and practice of creating a racially hostile work environment and otherwise discriminating against minority employees on the basis of their race. Plaintiffs also allege that they were retaliated against for engaging in activities protected by Title VII.
Castillo filed this lawsuit against Lennar on May 12, 2008. On May 20, 2008, a First Amended Complaint was filed joining White-Yeldell as a Plaintiff. Lennar filed this Motion to Sever on August 20, 2008, noting that Plaintiffs did not allege a pattern and practice of discrimination. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. # 14] on August 27, 2008, adding a "pattern and practice" allegation. The Motion to Sever has now been fully briefed and is ripe for decision.
II. STANDARD FOR SEVERANCE
III. ANALYSIS
21See21Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co.15 F.3d 500505and20See, e.g., Blum v. General Elec. Co.547 F. Supp. 2d 717722 See Goodyear v. Dauterive Hosp. of New Iberia, La.2007 WL 2066855Alexander v. Fulton County 207 F.3d 13031322 en banc See id.
Plaintiffs also satisfy the requirement that there exist a common question of law or fact. They both allege that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment, and that they were victims of race discrimination and retaliation. Much of the discovery in the case and many of the witnesses will be the same for both Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have met the Rule 20 requirements for joinder of their claims. Defendants have not shown that joinder would result in significant prejudice or confusion, and joinder will clearly promote judicial economy. The Court denies the request for severance.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Both Plaintiffs allege a right to relief based on a racially hostile work environment, retaliation, and a pattern and practice of race discrimination by Defendants. There are questions of law and fact common to the claims asserted by both Plaintiffs, and joinder will promote judicial economy without causing undue prejudice or risk of confusion. As a result, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Sever [Doc. # 12] is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants' alternative Motion for Separate Trials is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being reurged, if appropriate, in the Joint Pretrial Order.