California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc. et al

Filing 146

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/4/14 DENYING 131 MOTION to BIFURCATE. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a nonprofit corporation,

10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-1207-GEB-AC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO BIFURCATE

v.
CHICO SCRAP METAL, INC., a
California corporation,
GEROGE W. SCOTT, SR.
REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST,
GEORGE SCOTT, SR., an
individual, and GEORGE SCOTT,
JR., an individual,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Defendants move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

19

(“Rule”) 42(b) for an order “bifurcate[ing] this matter into a

20

liability phase and a remedy phase,” arguing in a conclusory

21

manner that “[t]he liability and remedy issues in this case are

22

distinct and will have little, if any, overlapping evidence.”

23

(Defs.’ Mot. 1:21, 5:15-16, ECF No. 131.) Plaintiff did not file

24

an opposition, but Defendants state in their motion: “Plaintiff’s

25

counsel declined to consent to bifurcation.” (Id. 2:9.)
Defendants

26

have

not

sufficiently

explained

the

27

separability of the liability and remedy issues in this water

28

pollution

case.

Therefore,

Defendants
1

have

not

shown

that

1

bifurcation under Rule 42(b) is warranted, and accordingly the

2

motion is DENIED.

3

Dated:

June 4, 2014

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
2