## Facts

- Karpeh Cooper, Kelley Cooper, and five other individuals filed one federal action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ in the nature of mandamus to compel USCIS to act on their pending immigration-benefit applications.
- The defendants included Karen Fitzgerald, District Director of the USCIS Philadelphia District, and other senior federal officials connected to USCIS and federal law enforcement.
- Each plaintiff had an individual application pending before USCIS; the suit attempted to litigate the seven delay claims together in a single complaint.
- Defendants submitted a declaration from Kathleen Bausman, the acting field office director for the USCIS Philadelphia field office, stating she was responsible for monitoring and ensuring timely adjudication of applications handled there and that she reviewed the plaintiffs’ files.
- According to the declaration, none of the plaintiffs’ applications were delayed because of FBI name checks or background checks; the administrative posture and reasons for delay differed across files.
- The filings involved at least two different immigration application types—Forms I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) and I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status)—and the matters were in different stages of agency review.
- Defendants moved under Rule 21 to sever, arguing the plaintiffs were improperly joined under Rule 20(a) because the claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence (or series) and lacked common questions of law or fact.
- Defendants asked the court to sever the Coopers’ claims and dismiss the other plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether the seven plaintiffs satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1)(A) by asserting rights to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.
2. Whether the seven plaintiffs satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1)(B) by identifying any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs.
3. If Rule 20(a) was not satisfied, whether the court should grant relief “on just terms” under Rule 21 by severing some plaintiffs and dismissing the remaining misjoined plaintiffs without prejudice.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendants’ motion to sever under Rule 21.
- The court held that the plaintiffs were improperly joined because they did not meet Rule 20(a)’s requirements: their claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence (or series), and they did not share a sufficient common question of law or fact given the individualized application histories.
- The court severed the Coopers’ claims so they could proceed separately.
- The court dismissed the remaining plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice, allowing those plaintiffs to refile individual actions.

## Legal Principles

- Permissive joinder under Rule 20(a)(1) requires both (a) claims arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and (b) at least one common question of law or fact.
- Similar allegations against the same agency do not satisfy Rule 20(a) when each plaintiff’s claim turns on a distinct administrative record, timeline, and adjudicatory stage.
- Where the record shows the delays do not stem from a single shared cause (for example, not all tied to the same background-check process), Rule 20(a)’s “same transaction or occurrence” and common-question requirements are generally not met.
- Under Rule 21, a court may sever claims or drop parties to cure misjoinder; dismissal without prejudice can be a fair remedy when claims are fact-specific and better handled in separate cases.
- In deciding whether to sever, a court may consider case-management burdens and fairness; if each plaintiff’s claim requires individualized proof and file-by-file review, joint litigation may not serve efficiency.

## Conclusion

Cooper v. Fitzgerald applies Rule 20(a) strictly to a multi-plaintiff USCIS-delay complaint, finding that different immigration forms, different procedural stages, and file-specific reasons for delay defeated any shared transaction or common factual or legal question; using Rule 21, the court severed the Coopers’ claims and dismissed the remaining plaintiffs without prejudice so each could proceed, if desired, in a separate action.


Cooper v. Fitzgerald, 266 F.R.D. 86 (2010)