Student Does v. Kristi Noem

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 25-4113-JFW(MARx) Date: May 16, 2025 Title: Student Does Nos. 1-42 -v- Kristi Noem, et al. PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shannon Reilly None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: IMPROPER JOINDER The Court hereby orders Plaintiffs to show cause, in writing, no later than May 20, 2025, why one or more Plaintiffs should not be severed from this action as a result of improper joinder. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), which allows for permissive joinder, provides, in pertinent part: (1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in 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). Rule 20(a) imposes two specific requirements for proper joinder: “(1) a right to relief must be asserted by . . . each plaintiff . . . relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all the parties will arise in the action.” League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977). “The first prong, the ‘same transaction’ requirement, refers to similarity in the factual background of a claim.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the dismissal of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED.