Morris v. Northrop Grumman Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• granting separate trials and noting “there is no evidence that the [plaintiffs’] claims are related in any respect other than the fact that they both worked for the same company and they are both based on race discrimination”
• resolving a sever- ance motion by considering, among other factors, “whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence[,] whether the claims present some common questions of law or fact,” and “whether prejudice would be avoided if severance were granted”
• “[R]ather than scrutinizing each line ... and discussing whether they contain eonclusory allegations, legal arguments, or hearsay ... the court ... will only consider [ ] evidence that is admissible.”
• “The Court's determination as to whether it should sever the claims of the plaintiffs under Rule 21 or whether it should order separate trials under Rule 42 requires the same considerations.”
• “[R]ather than scrutinizing each line . . . and discussing whether they contain conclusory allegations, legal arguments, or hearsay . . . the court . . . will only consider [ ] evidence that is admissible.”
• “[R]ather than scrutinizing each line . . . and discussing whether they contain conclusory allegations, legal arguments, or hearsay . . . the court . . . will only consider [ ] evidence that is admissible.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).