Tushbaby, Inc. v. The Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 1:24-cv-22281

Tushbaby, Inc. filed an intellectual property infringement suit against nine foreign-based individuals and business entities, alleging trade dress and copyright violations.
The defendants are independent e-commerce sellers, each accused of selling unauthorized and non-compliant products online.
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to whether joinder of these defendants in a single action was appropriate under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The core issue was whether the claims against all defendants arose from the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," as required for proper joinder.
Plaintiff relied on a "swarm" theory to argue that separate but similar infringement by unrelated defendants should allow for collective joinder in one suit.
The Court ultimately held that joinder was improper and severed all but the first defendant, dismissing those claims without prejudice for refiling as separate actions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Joinder of multiple defendants under Rule 20	Tushbaby: Defendants participated in a "swarm" of similar conduct, justifying joinder as the harm is collective.	Defendants (or Court): Independent acts of infringement by unrelated defendants lack the necessary connection; no shared transaction or occurrence.	Joinder is improper because claims do not arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series; mere similarity of conduct is insufficient.
Commonality of legal/factual issues	Tushbaby: Common questions of law or fact exist as all defendants allegedly infringe the same IP.	Defendants: Similar legal issues alone are insufficient for joinder without shared operative facts.	Commonality alone does not satisfy Rule 20; both commonality and same transaction/occurrence are required.
Judicial economy and convenience	Tushbaby: Joinder promotes efficiency, reduces costs, and prevents unnecessary duplicative litigation.	Defendants: Joinder complicates proceedings, leads to a confusing record, and unfairly benefits plaintiff.	Efficiency and convenience do not override the threshold joinder requirements under Rule 20.
Swarm theory as basis for joinder	Tushbaby: The swarm of independent actors causes collective harm justifying joinder.	Defendants: "Swarm" theory not recognized; doing the same thing the same way does not link defendants.	Swarm theory does not satisfy the Rule 20 requirement for shared transactions or occurrences.

Swan v. Ray, 293 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2002) (district court has broad discretion over joinder decisions)
Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000) (defining "transaction or occurrence" for Rule 20 using logical relationship standard)
United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (purpose of Rule 20 is trial convenience and judicial economy)
AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1–1058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (same type of violation does not link defendants for joinder)