Multifamily Captive Group, LLC., v. Assurance Risk Managers, Inc., et al.,

Filing 135

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 10/6/09 ORDERING the court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and the arguments raised by defendant CAA in support of bifurcation of the trial. The court does not find that any additional convenience or efficiency is reached by the requested bifurcation. Nor does the court conclude that such bifurcation is necessary to avoid prejudice. Therefore, defendants motion 132 is DENIED. (Becknal, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---MULTIFAMILY CAPTIVE GROUP, LLC, A Maryland Corporation; SAMANTHA GUMENICK, an Individual, Plaintiffs, v. NO. CIV. S-08-0547 FCD DAD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ASSURANCE RISK MANAGERS, INC., A Colorado Corporation; LISA ISOM, an Individual; NETWORK INSURANCE AGENTS, INC., a California Corporation; and CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation, Defendants. ___________________________/ ----oo0oo---This matter comes before the court on defendant California Apartment Association's ("CAA") motion to bifurcate the claims against it from those pending against defendants Lisa Isom ("Isom") and Assurance Risk Managers ("ARM"). Specifically,

defendant CAA seeks separate trials in the matter on the issues 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of breach of contract and conspiracy. motion.

Plaintiffs oppose the

Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part: For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims. "Rule 42(b) merely allows, but does not require a trial court to bifurcate cases." Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Further, the district

Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021 (9th Cir. 2004).

court has broad discretion in its decision whether to bifurcate claims or issues. M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy, 421 F.3d 1073,

1088 (9th Cir. 2005). The court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and the arguments raised by defendant CAA in support of bifurcation of the trial. The court does not find that any additional

convenience or efficiency is reached by the requested bifurcation. Nor does the court conclude that such bifurcation Therefore, defendant's motion

is necessary to avoid prejudice. is DENIED.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 6, 2009.

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h). 2

1