Adame et al v. Surprise, City of et al

Filing 171

ORDER denying 142 Motion to Bifurcate; striking 144 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and granting 153 Motion to Strike Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 3/18/21. (DXD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Maria Adame, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-03200-PHX-GMS

City of Surprise, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Surprise’s Motion to Bifurcate, (Doc.

17

142), and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 144). Also before the Court is

18

Plaintiffs’ Objection and Request to Strike Defendant’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment

19

on the Pleadings. (Doc. 153.) For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate

20

is denied, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is stricken, and Plaintiffs’

21

Motion to Strike is granted.

22

I.

Motion to Bifurcate

23

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to order separate trials of

24

separate issues for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize. Fed. R.

25

Civ. P. 42(b). District courts have broad discretion as to whether bifurcation is appropriate.

26

Zivokic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Exxon Co. v.

27

Sofec, Ins., 54 F.3d 570, 575 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The piecemeal trial of separate issues in a

28

single lawsuit . . . is not to be the usual course, however, and will be ordered only where

1

the party seeking separate trials meets his or her burden of proving that bifurcation is

2

necessary.” Lassley v. Secura Supreme Inc., No. 14-cv-1766, 2015 WL 5634307, at *2 (D.

3

Ariz. Sept. 15, 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

4
5
6

Defendant does not meet its burden of proving that bifurcation of the liability and
damages phases of the trial is necessary. Accordingly, the Motion to Bifurcate is denied.
II.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

7

Ryan v. Napier was published on August 23, 2018. 245 Ariz. 54, 425 P.3d 230

8

(2018). The Mandatory Initial Discovery Program Responses and Fact Discovery deadline

9

was November 23, 2018, and the parties were required to file dispositive motions by

10

January 11, 2019. (Doc. 42.) Defendant could have sought relief pursuant to Ryan v.

11

Napier prior to the first dispositive motion deadline and failed to do so. As Defendant filed

12

the instant dispositive motion, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, after the dispositive

13

motion deadline without leave from the Court, the Motion is stricken.

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the Trial

16
17
18

into Separate Issues of Liability and Damages (Doc. 142) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings (Doc. 144) is STRICKEN.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objection and Request to Strike

20

Defendants’ Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 153) is GRANTED.

21

Dated this 18th day of March, 2021.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-