Opinion
CASE NO: 8:11-cv-955-T-33EAJ.
June 9, 2011
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Walmart's Unopposed Motion to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims (Doc. # 4).
Walmart argues that Plaintiffs' individual claims, while based on alleged violations of the same statute, arise out of a completely different set of occurrences. Walmart submits that because Plaintiffs' disparate fact allegations will require the Court to analyze claims for relief that arise from transactions and occurrences that are not common to each Plaintiff, the requirements for joinder under Rule 20(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., are not met, and severance of their two claims into two separate lawsuits is appropriate. The Court notes that Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion.
Rule 20(a) provides that:
Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a).
The Court agrees that the claims of Finnerty and Rathje do not fall within the purview of Rule 20(a) to be joined in a single action. Thus, pursuant to Rule 21, Fed.R.Civ.P., the claims of Plaintiffs must be severed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant Walmart's Unopposed Motion to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims (Doc. # 4) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to open a separate file for Plaintiff Eddwinna Rathje, and Rathje shall be required to pay a separate filing fee.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida.