From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carrington v. Vertex Aerospace, L.L.C.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas
Apr 8, 2004
Civil No. EP-03-CA-523(KC) (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2004)

Opinion

Civil No. EP-03-CA-523(KC)

April 8, 2004


ORDER


Defendant moves absent opposition for severance of or in the alternative for separate trials on the claims of the individual plaintiffs.

The present motion was filed in accordance with this Court's motion practice absent opposition. Counsel for plaintiffs contacted chambers on April 6, 2004 and represented that she had no objection to the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The present complaint involves allegations of retaliation, discrimination and hostile work environment in violation of sections 703 and 704 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, 2000e-3 by defendant. The complaint sets forth fairly generic allegations as to denial of "the same benefits and enjoyment of all laws enjoyed by. . . white employees" and imposition of "different terms and conditions of employment" by defendant as to both plaintiffs. Complaint ¶ 7a, c. The remaining allegations include hostile work environment, constructive discharge and retaliatory discharge claims by Carrington, id. ¶ 7b, e, f, and a discriminatory discharge claim by Montalvo, id. ¶ 7d. Defendant adds through the present motion that plaintiffs worked in different departments at different times for different supervisors.

II. STANDARD

Motions for severance and for separate trials are distinct and should be treated as such, the former governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21 and the latter governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. McDaniel v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 987 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1993). Severance results in two actions where originally there was one, Allied Elevator, Inc. v. E. Texas State Bank of Buna, 965 F.2d 34, 36 (5th Cir. 1992), while an order for separate trials affects only the manner in which trial is conducted, resulting in a single judgment. Spencer, White Prentis, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 498 F.2d 358, 361 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1974)

For joinder of parties or claims, Rule 20(a) requires an assertion of "any right to relief. . . in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action." Rule 21 provides that "[p]arties may be dropped or added. . . at any stage of the action . . . [and] [a]ny claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately." Relevant considerations in determining whether to sever a party or claim may include whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, whether the claims present common questions of law or fact, whether judicial economy would be served, whether prejudice could be avoided through severance and whether the separate claims require different witnesses and documentary proof. Morris v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 37 F. Supp.2d 556, 580 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).

III. DICUSSION

Applying relevant considerations set forth above to the present facts, it appears that the connection between the plaintiffs is nothing more than their allegations of discrimination by a common employer pursued by a single attorney. This cannot be said to "aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," nor would this Court conclude, given the distinct discrimination theories alleged, that the legal theories involve a "question of law or fact common to all these persons." FED. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Given the factual and legal distinctions between the plaintiffs' claims, it would not be appropriate to permit a single action with separate trials. The claims of the two plaintiffs shall therefore proceed in separate actions.

IV. CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion for severance (Doc. No. 8) is granted. The Clerk is directed to dismiss Shanterry Montalvo as a party in the present case and assign her case to a new docket number using a copy of the present complaint. The newly established case shall be assigned to this Court. Plaintiffs are directed to file amended, separate complaints in the two cases not later than April 23, 2004 reflecting the severance directed by this Order.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Carrington v. Vertex Aerospace, L.L.C.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas
Apr 8, 2004
Civil No. EP-03-CA-523(KC) (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2004)
Case details for

Carrington v. Vertex Aerospace, L.L.C.

Case Details

Full title:THEOGA CARRINGTON and SHANTERRY MONTALVO, Plaintiffs,-vs-VERTEX AEROSPACE…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Texas

Date published: Apr 8, 2004

Citations

Civil No. EP-03-CA-523(KC) (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2004)

Citing Cases

Gardner v. Cardinal Constr., Inc.

Id. at *4. Similarly, in Carrington v. Vertex Aerospace, LLC, 2004 WL 838014 (W.D. Tex. 2004) the Court…

Culpepper v. Deere & Co.

In Morris v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 37F. Supp. 2d 556, 581 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), the Court ordered separate…