Barber v. America's Wholesale Lender
289 F.R.D. 364
M.D. Fla.2013Background
- Plaintiffs purport to represent at least 18 borrowers and assert claims against at least 9 lenders across 15 separate mortgages.
- First Amended Complaint includes fictitious defendants and entities (John Does 1-X, ABC Corporations 1-X, etc.).
- Plaintiffs allege conduit lending intended for REMIC securitization and claim harm from lacking a direct borrower/lender relationship.
- Plaintiffs seek to rescind or void loans based on alleged mistake and misalignment at contract formation.
- Court granted show-cause order; severed all claims except those of Sean Barber and Kristina Barber against America’s Wholesale Lender.
- Despite joinder arguments, court found claims arise from distinct transactions and lack concerted activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permissive joinder under Rule 20(a) is satisfied | Barber contends transactions are related by industry practices | Defendants argue lack of common operative facts and no concerted action | Not satisfied; claims not arising from same series of transactions or common facts |
| Whether severance under Rule 21 is appropriate even if Rule 20(a) fails | Joinder would promote judicial economy | Severance would prevent prejudice and reduce complexity | Severance appropriate to promote fairness, expedience, and cost control |
Key Cases Cited
- Canada v. Mathews, 449 F.2d 253 (5th Cir.1971) (court authority to control dockets; broad discretion over case management)
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir.1997) (broad discretion in managing cases; importance of efficient docket control)
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1966) (strong policy in favor of handling the broad scope of actions)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (district courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets)
- Plant v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 598 F.2d 1357 (5th Cir.1979) (logical relationship standard for related claims; broad interpretation to avoid multiple suits)
- Anderson v. Moorer, 372 F.2d 747 (5th Cir.1967) (case management considerations in joinder)