Hohlbein v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co.

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiffs were four individuals who were contacted and interviewed by Defendants representatives in connection with executive employment positions. They filed a complaint against Defendant based on alleged material misrepresentations made the during job interviews. Defendant moved, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20(a) and 21, to sever the action into four separate lawsuits.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) requires that the right to relief asserted by each plaintiff relate to or arise out of the same transaction(s) or occurrence(s) and that some question of law or fact common to all parties arises.

Facts.

Plaintiffs, four individuals who were contacted and interviewed by Defendants representatives in connection with executive employment positions, filed a complaint against Defendant, each stating independent causes of action under theories of false or reckless misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of promise. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s representatives made various material misrepresentations made the during job interviews, including a failure to advise Plaintiffs that their employment would be subject to a probationary period. Defendant moved, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20(a) and 21, to sever the action into four separate lawsuits on the grounds that they did not arise out of the same transaction(s) or occurrence(s) or involve common questions of law or fact, and that determining the claims together in one action did not serve the interest of judicial economy.

Issue.

Should Defendant’s motion to sever Plaintiffs’ action into four separate lawsuits be granted?

Held.

No. Resolution of the parties claims was best promoted by maintaining the proceeding in one action.

Discussion.

The circumstances under which each Plaintiff interviewed for, began working for, and had their employment terminated by Defendant were sufficiently similar to overcome dissimilarities in their particular cases that might otherwise justify severance. All Plaintiffs alleged that their employment was subject to a probationary period, and all claimed similar damages. Also, any burden imposed on Defendant by keeping the litigation together was outweighed by the practical benefits of conserving resources in one litigation.