Cooper v. Fitzgerald

Citation. 266 F.R.D. 86 (E.D. Pa. 2010)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation266 F.R.D. 86 (E.D. Pa. 2010)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiffs filed a single complaint to compel Defendants to take action on their individual applications for immigration benefits. Based on the fact that Plaintiffs’ claims did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and lacked a common question of law or fact, Defendants filed a motion to sever the claims of the first-named plaintiffs and dismiss without prejudice the remaining plaintiffs’ claims.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A court may sever a party from other parties pursuant to FRCP Rule 21 if the parties are improperly joined under FRCP Rule 20(a).

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The mere fact that all of a plaintiff's claims arise under the same general law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact.

View Full Point of Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court against Defendants to compel action on Plaintiffs’ applications for immigration benefits pending before the USCIS. Defendants filed a motion to sever Plaintiff Coopers’ claims and to dismiss the remaining plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants argued that Acting Director Kathleen Bausman of the USCIS Philadelphia field office was responsible for ensuring the timely adjudication of all immigration applications held by the field office. Bausman filed a declaration attesting to the same and noted that none of Plaintiffs’ applications had been delayed due to name and background checks. Additionally, Defendants claimed that two different immigration applications were involved, I-130s and I-485s, each in a different stage of the review process. Consequently, Defendants claimed that Plaintiffs did not satisfy FRCP Rule 20(a) test for permissive joinder of claims.

Issue.

May a court sever a party from other parties pursuant to FRCP Rule 21 if the parties are improperly joined under FRCP Rule 20(a)?

Held.

Yes. The court held a court may sever a party from other parties pursuant to FRCP Rule 21 if the parties are improperly joined under FRCP Rule 20(a), as Plaintiffs were improperly joined in this case.

Discussion.

A court may sever a party from other parties pursuant to FRCP Rule 21 if the parties are improperly joined under FRCP Rule 20(a). The permissive joinder of multiple plaintiffs’ claims is appropriate under FRCP Rule 20(a) if: 1) the multiple plaintiffs have a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence; and 2) there exists some question of law or fact common to the multiple plaintiffs.

Here, the first prong of FRCP Rule 20(a) requires that the plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same transaction. Plaintiffs supported their joinder by claiming that their respective immigration applications were not adjudicated within a reasonable time due to the inability of the USCIS to clear background and other checks common among all Plaintiffs. However, Bausman’s declaration showed that the delay was not due to background checks, and consequently, Plaintiffs couldn’t justify joinder based on the common delay. In addition, the fact that Plaintiffs were awaiting adjudication of similar immigration benefits did not weigh in favor of joinder. Many of Plaintiffs’ applications were at different stages in the decision-making process, with varying reasons for delay. An allegation of general delay was not enough to create a common transaction or occurrence. The second prong of FRCP Rule 20(a) requires that Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of a common question of law or fact. Bausman’s declaration showed that there was no factual commonality as none of the plaintiffs’ applications were delayed by name and background checks. Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not show that any question of law common to all of them existed. For these reasons, Plaintiffs did not meet the elements of permissive joinder and were improperly joined. Defendants’ motion to sever the Coopers’ claims was granted, and the remaining plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without prejudice.