MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
This divеrsity action arises out of two incidents in which customers at Subway Restaurants in New York and North Carolina discovered seven-inch serrated knives baked into the bread of their sandwiches. Plaintiffs John Agnesini (“Agnesini”) and Terrie Moody (“Moody”) (together, the “Plaintiffs”) bring claims for negligenсe, strict products liability, breach of implied and express warranties, and negligent supervision and training against defendant Doctor’s Associates, Inc. (“DAI”), the franchisor of Subway Restaurants. DAI has moved to sever Moody’s claims from Agnesini’s claims pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, that motion is denied.
I. Background
A. Facts
The following facts taken from the Complaint are presumed to be true.
DAI is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶2, 6). Agnesini is а
On June 27, 2008, Agnesini purchased a sandwich from a Subway franchisee located at 224 West 35th Street in Manhattan. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14). After Agnesini began eating the sandwich, “he felt something hard on the bottom of the sandwich, turned it over, and discovered that an approximately [seven-inch] knife with a serrated metal blade and plastic handle had been baked inside the bread.” (Id. ¶ 17). Agnesini later “developed severe stomach pain and diarrhea” due to “toxins from the plastic [that had] melted into the bread.” (Id. ¶ 18).
Nearly six months later, on December 18, 2008, Moоdy discovered that a seven-inch knife with a serrated metal blade and plastic handle had been baked into the bread of a sandwich that she purchased from a Subway franchisee in Goldsboro, North Carolina. (Id. ¶¶ 19-23). Unlike Agnesini, Moody discovered the knife by biting into it. (Id. ¶ 22).
B. Procedural History
The Plаintiffs filed this lawsuit on December 9, 2010. (ECF No. 1). On February 9, 2011, the case was referred to me for general pretrial supervision. (ECF No. 5). After DAI filed its motion to sever, (ECF No. 6), the parties consented to my exercise of jurisdiction over that motion and a potential related motion on February 17, 2011.
II. Discussion
Rule 21 provides that a court “may at any time, on just terms, add or drоp a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. The Rule thus gives courts “broad discretion ... to sever parties or claims from the action.” Deskovic v. City of Peekskill,
In deciding a motion to sever, courts consider whether the plaintiffs have been joined properly under Rule 20(a)(1) of the Federal Rules. Joinder is proper under that rule if “(A) [the plaintiffs] assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with resрect 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)(1); see Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp.,
A. Same Transaction or Occurrence
“There is no rigid rule as to what constitutes the same series оf transactions or occurrences for purposes of joinder under Rule 20.” Vulcan Soc’y v. Fire Dep’t of White Plains,
DAI contends that the Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” because the claims relate to events that occurred on different dates, in different states, and at different Subway franchises. (ECF No. 6-1 (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 4). In DATs view, the “only connection between the plaintiffs and [DAI] appears tо be that the restaurants have a common franchisor, [DAI].” (Id. at 5). DAI argues that this connection is irrelevant because “the existence of a franchisor-franchisee relationship, ... without more, does not give rise to the franchisor’s vicarious liability.” (Id.). DAI further asserts that “[t]here is no logical relation between the claims of the plaintiffs because [DAI] is not in the chain of bread supply,” inasmuch as DAI “does not prepare or supply, nor even contract for, the sandwich bread which is the subject of the instant litigation.” (ECF No. 13 (“Reply”) at 7-8, Ex. B (Aff. of Steven J. Lawrence, sworn to on March 10, 2011 (“Lawrence Aff.”), ¶ 7)). Rather, the franchisees, acting collectively through a corporate entity known as Independent Purchasing Cooperative, Inc. (“IPC”), have contracted with a firm named Pennant Foods Company (“Pennant Foods”), to supply the franchisees with bread. (Lawrence Aff. ¶ 7; Reply Ex. C (“Supply Agreement”)).
DAI misses the point. The issue is not whether DAI ultimately may be held liable for the Plaintiffs’ injuries, but whether the Plaintiffs’ claims are “logically related.” In that regard, the exhibits annexеd to DATs own reply papers confirm that the allegedly defective bread in both incidents came from a common source — Pennant Foods. (See Lawrence Aff. ¶ 7 (“the franchisees, through [IPC], have contracted directly with Pennant Foods Company to supply them with brеad for the Subway sandwiches”)). This evidence only bolsters the Plaintiffs’ theory of the case, which is that the knives were placed into the bread at a single location and then distributed to the New York and North Carolina franchises. (Tr. 7-8 (“the bread that’s used is manufactured at a Doctor’s Associates facility not at the franchise’s location ... the knife actually most likely originated from an outside source, namely, ... the factory in which the bread was produced and baked”)). The common origin of the bread thus provides the “logical relationship” between the “factual backgrounds” giving rise to each claim, therefore satisfying the first prong of the Rule 20(a)(1) joinder analysis. See Barn-hart,
B. Common Questions of Law or Fact
DAI further contends that the Plaintiffs’ claims lack common questions of law or fact. (See Def.’s Mem. at 5; Reply at 8-9). Contrary to that suggestiоn, one overarching question of law common to both Plaintiffs’ claims is whether DAI, as a franchisor, may be held vicariously liable for their injuries, a topic that both the Plaintiffs and DAI address in their briefs. (See ECF No. 11 (“Pis.’ Mem.”) at 6-7; Def.’s Mem. at 5; Reply at 10-11). In order to answer that question, the partiеs necessarily will need to explore the nature of DATs relationship with its franchisees to determine, as a factual matter, whether DAI “controls the day-today operations of the franchisee, and more specifically whether [DAI] exercises a considerable degree of control over the [bread] at issue in” this case. See Toppel v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 3042(DAB),
C. Judicial Economy, Prejudice, and Witnesses and Evidence
Turning to considerations of judicial economy, as the Plaintiffs correctly observe, severing Moody’s claims from this action would be a colossal “waste of judicial resources.” (Pis.’ Mem. at 1). By now, the parties presumably have completed the document discovery thаt I previously directed. (See ECF No. 8 (ordering all fact discovery relating to Agnesini to be completed by June 30, 2011)). Little purpose would be served by burdening another court with an essentially identical case involving many of the same witnesses and evidence, particularly in light оf the fact that this Court already is familiar with the facts of the case.
DAI contends that it would suffer an “undue burden” if it were required “to defend a cause of action arising out of an occurrence in North Carolina, in the Southern District of New York.” (Def.’s Mem. at 5). The only “difficultiеs” that DAI claims it would endure if the action is not severed, however, are “retaining the services of a medical expert to examine [Moody] in North Carolina, who is [also] able to give testimony in New York” and deposing witnesses in North Carolina. (Id.). The first of these claimed impediments is readily cured. Having chosen New York as the forum for her claim, Moody can be required to come to New York for purposes of her medical examination, unless she is able to show that this would impose an “undue hardship.” See Mikulka v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-588-J-32TEM,
Finally, by agreeing to proceed with discovery with respect to every aspect of the case not exclusively related to North Carolina, DAI has impliedly conceded that there is substantial overlap in the witnesses and evidence involved in both Plaintiffs’ claims. (See Tr. 6-8). By hearing those claims in one forum, the Court also can ensure that the finder of fact does not reach inconsistent verdicts with respеct to those claims. See Lutz v. Buono, No. 05 Civ. 4879(GAY),
In sum, considerations of judicial economy and possible prejudice also augur in favоr of a joint trial.
D. Venue
Finally, DAI contends that “the correct venue for the causes of action allege[d] by ... Moody is the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Carolina.” (Def.’s Mem. at 5). To the extent that DAI argues that venue over Moody’s claims does not lie in this District, DAI is mistaken. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a)(1) (when jurisdiction is based exclusively on diversity, venue is proper in “a judicial district where any defendant resides,
Additionally, to the extеnt that DAI asserts that the Eastern District of North Carolina is a more appropriate venue in which to litigate Moody’s claims and, thus, seeks to have her claims transferred there pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, the factors relevant to a transfer analysis, many of which have been discussed in the context of DATs motion for a severance, weigh in favor of continuing this action in the Southern District of New York. See Posven, C.A. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, DATs motion to sever, (ECF No. 6), is denied. The Court will hold a telephone conference on August 11, 2011, at 2 p.m., to discuss, inter alia, setting a schedule for the completion of discovery.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
This Memorandum Decision аnd Order was prepared with the assistance of Erika Mayo, a student at Hastings College of the Law.
. During a telephone conference on February 14, 2011 ("Feb. 14 Conference”), DAI indicated that it might implead the New York and North Carolina franchisees. If so, it also wаs considering filing a motion to dismiss on the theory that diversity jurisdiction no longer existed. (See ECF No. 14 ("Tr.”) at 8-9). Ultimately, DAI elected not to make that motion. This is scarcely surprising since “parties who are impleaded fall within the supplemental (formerly ancillary) jurisdiction of the federal courts provided for in Section 1367 of the Judicial Code and thus do not affect the court’s original determination of whether diversity jurisdiction exists.” 13E Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3608 (3d ed. 2009).