PPV Connection, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 607 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 (D.P.R. 2009) (improper joinder as basis for dismissal declared moot); PPV Connection, Inc. v. Pacheco, No. 08-1045 (D.P.R. filed Jan. 11, 2008) (Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Court on Motion to Dismiss for improper joinder pending). However, the present case closely parallels Don King Productions, Inc. v. Colon-Rosario, 561 F.Supp. 2d 189 (D.P.R. 2008), which held joinder improper where (1) there was no allegation that defendants acted in concert, (2) the only connection between defendants was that they were alleged to have violated the same federal laws against piracy of cable television, (3) defendants were likely to present different defenses, and (4) defendants were likely to confront different evidence. Id. at 192 (D.P.R. 2008).
PPV Connection, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 607 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 (D.P.R. 2009) (improper joinder as basis for dismissal declared moot); PPV Connection, Inc. v. Pacheco, No. 08-1045 (D.P.R. filed Jan. 11, 2008) (Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Court on Motion to Dismiss for improper joinder pending). However, the present case closely parallels Don King Productions, Inc. v. Colon-Rosario, 561 F.Supp. 2d 189 (D.P.R. 2008), which held joinder improper where (1) there was no allegation that defendants acted in concert, (2) the only connection between defendants was that they were alleged to have violated the same federal laws against piracy of cable television, (3) defendants were likely to present different defenses, and (4) defendants were likely to confront different evidence. Id. at 192.
Transactional Relatedness Test Rangeley relies on Don King Prods., Inc. v. Colon-Rosario, 561 F.Supp.2d 189 (D.P.R.2008), for the proposition that it is appropriate to examine the following factors in determining whether the transactional relatedness test is met: (i) whether the defendants were alleged to have acted in concert, (ii) whether the only connection between them is that they are alleged to have violated the same law, (iii) whether they are likely to have different defenses, and (iv) whether different evidence will apply to each defendant. See Motion at 4-5; Don King, 561 F.Supp.2d at 192.
In cases involving unlawful communication interception, the second prong-showing that defendants share common questions of law or fact-is easily satisfied because the cases concern the same federal anti-piracy laws. Don King Productions, Inc. v. Colon-Rosario, 561 F.Supp.2d 189, 191 (D.P.R.2008) (observing that in unlawful communication interception cases, the second prong of Rule 20 is " easily met" ; quoting DIRECTV v. Collins, 244 F.R.D. 408, 410 (D.Ohio 2007)). Thus, in these cases, where defendants are not alleged to be jointly or severally liable, assertions of improper joinder often hinge on the first prong of Rule 20-transactional relatedness, a " thornier" prong that is " often difficult to apply, and requires a case-by-case analysis."
Allowing this action to go forward against all 4 defendants would prejudice the defendants and would be fundamentally unfair. See Don King Prods., Inc. v. Colon-Rosario, 561 F. Supp. 2d 189, 192 (D.P.R. 2008) (where claims against multiple defendants arose from distinct transactions and would give rise to unique defenses, the plaintiff's "convenience to bring all claims against these defendants in one action without paying fee for each defendant, is outweighed by the prejudice and delay it would put on the Court's shoulders, as well as each defendant's defense counsel"). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the proper remedy for improper joinder of parties is not dismissal. Rather, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.
Both prongs of the test must be met in order for joinder to be appropriate. See Don King Prods., Inc. V. Colon-Rosario, et al., 561 F. Supp. 2d 189, 191 (D. Puerto Rico 2008). In this case, Plaintiff's factual allegations do not establish that his claims against the individual defendants are sufficiently related such that they should be joined in one complaint.
Both prongs of the test must be met in order for joinder to be appropriate. See Don King Prods., Inc. V. Colon-Rosario, et al., 561 F. Supp. 2d 189, 191 (D. Puerto Rico 2008). Plaintiff's claims regarding the BOP's application of SORNA and SOMA to him bear no relationship to the deliberate-indifference claim asserted in his original complaint.
At the very least, because of the numerous and unrelated occurrences that give rise to these varied claims, it is likely that the defendants will present unique defenses that will require different evidence. See Don King Prods., Inc. v. Colon-Rosario, 561 F. Supp. 2d 189, 192 (D. Puerto Rico 2008) (where claims against multiple defendants arose from distinct transactions and would give rise to unique defenses, the plaintiff's "convenience to bring all claims against these defendants in one action without paying fees for each defendant, is outweighed by the prejudice and delay it would put on the Court's shoulders, as well as each defendant's defense counsel"). In this case, as the Court previously informed Plaintiff, it is unclear which claim Plaintiff seeks to pursue.
See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) (multiple defendants may be joined in the same action only if, first, "any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;" and second, there must be a "question of law or fact common to all defendants" in the action.); Don King Prods., Inc. V. Colon-Rosario, et al., 561 F. Supp. 2d 189, 191 (D. Puerto Rico 2008) (both prongs of test must be met for joinder to be appropriate). Ordinarily, the Court would require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint identifying the core claim he intends to pursue in this case. However, the Complaint is further defective because Plaintiff failed to truthfully disclose his case filing history.
Courts consider two requirements to rule on motions for joinder under Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(1): (1) the right to relief asserted by each plaintiff must arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and (2) a question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. See Maldonado Cordero v. AT & T, 190 F.R.D. 26, 28 (D.P.R.1999); Don King Prods., Inc. v. Colon–Rosario, 561 F.Supp.2d 189, 191 (D.P.R.2008). Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a) is liberallyconstrued in order to promote the broadest scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties.