Spaeth v. Mich. State Univ. Coll. of Law
Decision Date | 17 February 2012 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11–1376 (ESH). |
Citation | 845 F.Supp.2d 48,81 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1371,282 Ed. Law Rep. 342 |
Parties | Nicholas SPAETH, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lynne A. Bernabei, Alan Robert Kabat, Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
John M. Simpson, Michelle C. Pardo, Rebecca E. Bazan, Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, Daniel I. Prywes, Bryan Cave LLP, William David Nussbaum, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Washington, DC, Susanne Harris Carnell, Lorenger & Carnell PLC, Alexandria, VA, George Andrew Carroll, State of Iowa, Des Moines, IO, Sara Slaff, Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Nicholas Spaeth sued six law schools and various officers at those schools alleging that they violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), by not offering him a tenure-track teaching position after he applied to them in advance of the 2010 American Association of Law Schools (“AALS”) Faculty Recruitment Conference in Washington, D.C. ( See Amended Complaint, Nov. 7, 2011 [Dkt. No. 10] (“Am. Compl.”).) Before the Court are motions to dismiss, or in the alternative to sever and transfer, brought by defendants Michigan State University College of Law (“Michigan State”); 1 the University of Missouri School of law and its Chancellor, Brady J. Deaton (collectively, “Missouri”); Hastings College of the Law and its Chancellor and Dean, Frank H. Wu (collectively, “UC Hastings”); and the University of Iowa College of Law and its President, Sally Mason (collectively, “Iowa”).2 Upon consideration of these motions and Spaeth's oppositions thereto,3 the Court will grant defendants' motions insofar as they seek severance and transfer, and deny them without prejudice insofar as they seek dismissal of plaintiff's claims.
Spaeth, a citizen and resident of Missouri who was born in 1950 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 6), applied for teaching positions “with each of the” defendant law schools “and every other AALS member school through the Faculty Appointments Register [ (“FAR”) ] during the 2010 hiring cycle.” ( Id. ¶ 28.4) AALS's FAR process requires applicants to submit “a short profile of [their] education, background, and teaching interests,” which is compiled on the “mandatory” FAR Form, and, if they wish, a full resume. ( Id. ¶ 21.) Applicants' FAR Forms and optional resumes are then “distributed to all AALS members who are recruiting” prior to the Recruitment Conference. ( Id. ¶ 22.) Separately, law schools participating in the Conference “list, in the AALS[ ] Placement Bulletin, [ ] descriptions of open positions and the type[s] of candidate[s] sought.” ( Id. ¶ 23.) Upon receipt of applicants' FAR Forms and optional resumes, law schools select and notify applicants they wish to interview at the Conference. ( See id. ¶ 29; Iowa Mot. at 4–5.)
Spaeth was selected for two interviews at the 2010 AALS Recruitment Conference: “one at the University of Missouri, where he was already teaching as a visiting professor, and one at the University of Nebraska.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 29.) He ultimately “received no job offers during the 2010 hiring cycle.” ( Id.) Spaeth alleges that each defendant law school made offers to other candidates who were younger than he, and that those candidates were less qualified than he. ( Id. ¶ 1; see id. ¶¶ 36–63 (describing Spaeth's qualifications); id. ¶¶ 64–91 ( ); id. ¶¶ 95–130 ( ); id. ¶¶ 132–61 ( ); id. ¶¶ 195–223 ( ).)
Having filed Charges of Discrimination against each defendant law school with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and having received Notices of Right to Sue ( id. ¶¶ 4–5), Spaeth has now brought suit, alleging that each defendant law school violated the ADEA by not hiring him. He seeks an injunction “ordering each [defendant law school] to offer [him] a tenure-track teaching position,” along with declaratory, compensatory, and exemplary relief, and fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. ( Id. at 51–52.)
Defendants have moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Spaeth has not pled a prima facie case under the ADEA.5 In the alternative, defendants seek to sever Spaeth's suit, arguing that they have been misjoined and that the claims against each should be severed and transferred to each defendant law school's home forum. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 21 (“Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties”); 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (“Change of venue”).6
This Court will first consider severance and transfer, and since the Court concludes that they are appropriate for the reasons stated below, it need not address defendants' arguments for dismissal. See Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 486 F.3d 1342, 1348 (D.C.Cir.2007) ( ); Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F.Supp.2d 76, 79 (D.D.C.2009) (). Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) arguments are best addressed by the courts where Spaeth should have brought his claims.
“The court may sever claims if parties are improperly joined.” Davidson v. Dist. of Columbia, 736 F.Supp.2d 115, 119 (D.D.C.2010) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 21). “In determining whether parties are misjoined for purposes of Rule 21, courts apply the permissive joinder requirements of Rule 20(a).” Id. (citing Montgomery v. STG Int'l, Inc., 532 F.Supp.2d 29, 35 (D.D.C.2008)). As relevant here, defendants are properly joined if “any right to relief is asserted against them ... with respect to 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 defendants will arise in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2).7 “[T]he two prongs of Rule 20(a) ‘are to be liberally construed in the interest of convenience and judicial economy ... in a manner that will secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of th[e] action.’ ” Davidson, 736 F.Supp.2d at 119 ( )(quoting Lane v. Tschetter, No. 05–cv–1414 (EGS), 2007 WL 2007493, at *7 (D.D.C. July 10, 2007)). If the Rule 20(a) test is not satisfied, however, then defendants are not properly joined and the claims against them can be severed under Rule 21. See, e.g., id. at 119–22.
Pursuant to the first prong of the Rule 20(a) test, Spaeth's claims against defendants “aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2), only if they are “ ‘logically related.’ ” Maverick Entm't Grp., Inc. v. Does 1–2,115, 810 F.Supp.2d 1, 12 (D.D.C.2011) (quoting Disparte v. Corporate Exec. Bd., 223 F.R.D. 7, 10 (D.D.C.2004)); accord Bederson v. United States, 756 F.Supp.2d 38, 54 (D.D.C.2010). “The logical relationship test is flexible because ‘the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.’ ” Disparte, 223 F.R.D. at 10 (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966)). Yet, Spaeth “cannot join defendants who simply engaged in similar types of behavior, but who are otherwise unrelated; some allegation of concerted action between defendants is required.” Grynberg v. Alaskan Pipeline Co., No. 95–cv–725(TFH), 1997 WL 33763820, at *1 (D.D.C. March 27, 1997) (emphasis added); see id. at *2 ( ).
As in Davidson, other than “the fact that [Spaeth's] claims all arise under” the ADEA, Spaeth has “offered nothing to suggest that the claims are logically related in any way.” 736 F.Supp.2d at 121. Spaeth has not alleged any “concerted action between defendants.” Grynberg, 1997 WL 33763820, at *1. He has not alleged that defendants conspired in declining to interview him or offer him a job,8 nor has he claimed that they acted pursuant to a shared policy. By any reading of Spaeth's Amended Complaint, defendants acted independently when they evaluated his candidacy and decided, for whatever reason, against interviewing or hiring him. Furthermore, the fact that defendants “are members of a common industry is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the right to relief against all [d]efendants arises out of the same transaction or occurrence.” Wynn v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 234 F.Supp.2d 1067, 1078 (C.D.Cal.2002); see id. at 1079 ( ).
As to the second prong, the fact that Spaeth's claims are premised on the same legal theory is insufficient for showing that they raise common “question[s] of law or fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2)(B). “ ‘Common issues of law...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Abou-Hussein v. Mabus
...the Secretary's arguments regarding res judicata are best resolved by the transferee court. See, e.g., Spaeth v. Mich. State Univ. Coll. of Law, 845 F.Supp.2d 48, 52–53 (D.D.C.2012) ( “Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) arguments are best addressed by the courts where [the plaintif......
-
Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
...sever the relevant claims into separate cases, so that one may be transferred in its entirety. See Spaeth v. Michigan State Univ. Coll. of Law, 845 F.Supp.2d 48, 57 n. 13 (D.D.C.2012) (severing claims prior to transferring, per § 1404(a) ); Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 132 (D.D.......
-
C.G.B. v. Wolf
...... [but are] otherwise unrelated[.]’ " Pinson v. DOJ, 74 F. Supp. 3d 283, 289 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Spaeth v. Mich. St. Univ. College of Law, 845 F. Supp. 2d 48, 53 (D.D.C. 2012) ) (second alteration in original). To satisfy the second prong of Rule 20(a), the movant need only show that t......
-
Solar Eclipse Inv. Fund VII v. T-Mobile U.S., Inc.
... ... motion to remand this action back to Florida state" court ... [D.E. 7]. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile\xE2\x80" ... (citing Spaeth v. Michigan State University College of Law, ... 845 ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...124, 125 , 126 , 128 Southway Theatres v. Ga. Theatre Co., 672 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1982), 289 Spaeth v. Mich. State Univ. Coll. of Law, 845 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2012), 277 Spectators’ Commc’n Network v. Colonial Country Club, 253 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2001), 33 , 50 New York ex rel. Spitzer v......
-
Trying Conspiracy Cases
...in cases where the allegations are ‘a series of overlapping and interwoven conspiracies.’”); Spaeth v. Mich. State Univ. Coll. of Law, 845 F. Supp. 2d 48, 53 (D .D.C. 2012) (one “cannot join defendants who simply engaged in similar types of behavior, but who are otherwise unrelated; some al......