Student Does v. Kristi Noem

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 16, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-04113
StatusUnknown

This text of Student Does v. Kristi Noem (Student Does v. Kristi Noem) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Student Does v. Kristi Noem, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coughlin v. Rogers
130 F.3d 1348 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Student Does v. Kristi Noem, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/student-does-v-kristi-noem-cacd-2025.