The motion to dismiss the class action and strike from the
complaint all references to persons similarly situated to
plaintiffs is premised on the ground that Rule 23(a) is not
applicable. "If persons constituting a class are so numerous as
to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, such
of them, one or more, as will fairly insure the adequate
representation of all may, on behalf of all, sue or be sued, when
the character of the right sought to be enforced for or against
the class is * * * several, and there is a common question of law
or fact affecting the several rights and a common relief is
sought." It is asserted that (1) plaintiffs have specified no
ascertainable class whose rights can be litigated in a class
action, (2) plaintiffs in this case are not such members of the
alleged class as will fairly insure adequate representation of
the class, (3) there is no indication that the members of the
alleged class are so numerous as "to make it impracticable to
bring them all before the court," (4) there is no common question
of law or fact affecting the several rights of members of the
alleged class, (5) no "common relief" is sought by or for any
ascertainable group, and (6) a class suit is inappropriate under
the statute conferring the substantive right which is sought to
be enforced on behalf of the alleged class.
The court is of the opinion that the named plaintiffs are not
and cannot adequately and fairly represent the alleged class. For
this reason the defendants' motion to dismiss the action as a
class action is sustained and all reference to this action as a
class action on behalf of persons similarly situated should be
The court considers next defendants' motion to drop certain
plaintiffs and defendants as misjoined parties from certain
claims and to sever such claims. Rule 18(a) provides that joinder
of claims when there are multiple parties is only allowable "if
the requirements of Rule * * * 20 * * * are satisfied." Rule
20(a) provides: "All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs
if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the
alternative 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 of them will arise in the
action. All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if
there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative, 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 of
them will arise in the action. A plaintiff or defendant need not
be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief
demanded. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs
according to their respective rights to relief, and against one
or more defendants according to their respective liabilities."
The above quoted rule provides that joinder is permissible on two
conditions: (1) right to relief arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence or series of transactions, and (2) if
there is any question of law or fact common to all.
It is clear that the injury to each plaintiff must be premised
on individual facts arising between the plaintiff and the
defendant, that this injury to the plaintiff could arise solely
from circumstances of this relationship with the defendants.
While the rule provides that a plaintiff "need not be interested
in obtaining * * * all the relief demanded", such right to relief
must arise from the same transaction or series of transactions in
which all the joined parties were engaged with the defendants.
For these reasons the court sustains the defendants' motion to
sever misjoined claims and parties.
Plaintiffs are given thirty days in which to amend.
Counsel are requested to present appropriate orders within ten
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.