Case 2:11-cv-05341-PA-AJW Document 67 Filed 01/24/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:584
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. CV 11-5341 PA (AJWx)
`Title
`John B. Kenney. v. Japan, et al.
`
`Date
`
`January 24, 2012
`
`Present: The
`Honorable
`
`PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Paul Songco
`Deputy Clerk
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`Not Present
`IN CHAMBERS – ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`N / A
`Not Reported
`Tape No.
`Court Reporter
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`Not Present
`
`Proceedings:
`
`The Court is in receipt of a Complaint filed by plaintiff John B. Kenney (“Plaintiff”) who
`appears pro se. The Complaint asserts eighteen claims against more than 100 defendants, including
`Japan, the People’s Republic of China, President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney,
`MI5, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of
`Investigation, the Democratic National Committee, the Yakuza Syndicate, various cities and their police
`departments, a number of banking institutions, and “two French stalkers” (“Defendants”). Plaintiff
`appears to be alleging that these Defendants are engaged in a global conspiracy against him that
`involves, inter alia, destroying his business, stalking him by helicopter, tapping his phone, reading his
`emails, issuing him parking tickets, using his girlfriend to spy on him, and not accepting his ATM card.
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), which allows for permissive joinder, provides that
`“[p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against
`them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect 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
`defendants will arise in the action.” See also League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning
`Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977). “The first prong, the ‘same transaction’ requirement, refers
`to similarity in the factual background of a claim.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.
`1997).
`
`Based on the Complaint’s factual allegations, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants do not appear
`to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, given that there seems to be little or no connection
`between most of the Defendants or the alleged harms.
`
`The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than February 6, 2012,
`why one or more parties should not be dropped from this case for improper joinder. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`18, 20, 21; see also Coughlin,130 F.3d at 1351 (finding misjoinder where “[e]ach claim raises
`potentially different issues, and must be viewed in a separate and individual light by the Court.”).
`Defendants may file their responses no later than February 13, 2012. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file
`separate actions against each of the Defendants, with new complaints and filing fees.
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-05341-PA-AJW Document 67 Filed 01/24/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:585
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. CV 11-5341 PA (AJWx)
`Title
`John B. Kenney. v. Japan, et al.
`
`Date
`
`January 24, 2012
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 2 of 2