Carla Visendi v. Bank of America, N.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that CAFA jurisdiction lies where plaintiffs “filed a single state-court complaint that named well over 100 plaintiffs”
• holding that plaintiffs’ interactions with the defendants were not uniform and the factual disparities alleged were too great to support permissive joinder
• noting that 25 severance under Rule 21 is the appropriate remedy for the misjoinder of a party
• explaining that Rule 20(a)(1)(A) by its terms requires factual similarity in the allegations supporting Plaintiffs’ claims
• noting that claims arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions of occurrences “requires factual similarity in the allegations supporting Plaintiffs’ claims.”
• finding that plaintiffs 27 could not be joined under Rule 20 where they “own separate and unrelated properties 28 across the country, they entered into separate loan transactions, and their dealings with 1 Defendants were necessarily varied”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).