Palla v. L M Sports, Inc. et al

Filing 189

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/1/19 GRANTING LM Sports' request to bifurcate the Limitation Action issues from the issue of damages. The Court also grants LM Sports' request to conduct trial on the Limitation Action first. The Bench Trial on the Limitation Action will commence on 2/25/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Manisha Palla,

11
12

No.

2:16-cv-02865-JAM-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

13

L M Sports, Inc. et al.,

14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR BIFURCATION AND
COURT TRIAL ON LIMITATION ACTION

Defendants.

15
16

In December 2016, Manisha Palla brought a negligence suit

17

against Paul Garcia and L M Sports, et al. (“L M Sports”),

18

asserting both diversity and admiralty jurisdiction.

19

ECF No. 1.

20

Exoneration or Limitation of Liability (“Limitation Action”).

21

See In the Matter of the Complaint of LT Leasing Inc et al., No.

22

2:17-cv-00041-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. filed Jan. 9, 2017), ECF No. 1.

23

Pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act (“LOLA”), the Court

24

stayed Palla’s action.

25

2:17-cv-00041, ECF No. 9.

26

finding that Palla fell within the savings-to-suiters exception.

27

Minute Order, No. 2:17-cv-00041, ECF No. 23.

28

consolidated the two actions.

Compl. ¶ 4,

L M Sports responded by filing a Complaint for

See Order Restraining All Suits, No.
The Court eventually lifted the stay,

Id.
1

The Court

1

In the recently-filed Joint Pre-Trial Statement, the parties

2

disagreed about bifurcating the trial, and which issues in the

3

case, if any, should be heard by a jury.

4

Statement at 1-3, ECF No. 168.

5

supplemental briefs, discussing whether the Limitation Action

6

should be bifurcated from the issue of damages, and whether

7

Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on any portion of those

8

proceedings.

9

2:16-cv-02865, ECF No. 177; Defs.’ Mem. re Separation of Trial on

Joint Pre-Trial

The parties jointly filed

See Pl.’s Mem. in Support of a Jury Trial, Case No.

10

Liability an Damages, ECF No. 178; Opposition by Pl. Manisha

11

Palla to [DKT 178] Brief, ECF No. 184; Opposition by Defs. to

12

[DKT 177] Brief, ECF No. 185.

13

Having read and considered the pleadings, the Court grants

14

Defendants’ request to bifurcate the issues of liability and

15

damages.

16

Defendant’s entire Limitation Action.

17

that L M Sports was negligent and the act of negligence was

18

within the vessel owner’s privity or knowledge then Palla will be

19

allowed to try the issue of damages to a jury. If the Court finds

20

that LM Sports was not negligent, Palla will not be allowed to

21

re-try the question of L M Sports’ liability to a jury.

22

The Court, sitting without a jury, will hear

I.

23

If the Court finds that

OPINION1

Rule 42 allows a court to order separate trials “[f]or

24
25
26
27
28

This order reflects the Court’s assumption that Paul Garcia
does not intend to appear or participate in the trial. Garcia is
not a party to the Limitation Action, so the Court will not have
cause to address the question of his liability during that
proceeding. If Garcia makes an appearance to contest liability,
the Court will have to reevaluate whether the current course of
action is still the most efficient and effective one.
2
1

1

convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.”

2

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(b).

3

The Court has carefully considered the arguments made and

4

the cases cited by each of the parties.

Although the Ninth

5

Circuit cases cited by Palla are instructive, this Court

6

disagrees that they squarely address the scenario at hand, or

7

dictate the result Palla advocates.

8

Shipping (“Ghotra”), 113 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997) is Palla’s

9

most persuasive case, but is easily distinguishable.

Ghotra by Ghotra v. Bandila

In Ghotra,

10

the plaintiffs brought three claims under the Court’s diversity

11

jurisdiction, and one claim under the Court’s admiralty

12

jurisdiction.

13

lower court erred in finding that the Ghotras “expressly sought

14

remedies under general federal maritime law in all four causes

15

of action” where plaintiffs had specifically pled that three of

16

their claims arose under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

17

Id. at 1054-55.

18

Id. at 1053.

The Ninth Circuit found that the

Here, Palla brought negligence claims against Garcia and

19

L M Sports.

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 96.

In

20

her statement of jurisdiction, she plead, “The Court has

21

admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1333.

22

also has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332.”

23

FAC ¶ 4.

24

the first-pled ground of jurisdiction wins the day.

25

Opposition by Def’s. to Plaintiff’s Brief [DKT. 177] (“Defs’.

26

Opp.”) at 3-5, ECF No. 185.

27

Palla cannot broadly claim both bases of jurisdiction, so she

28

may switch between them when it is procedurally advantageous.

The Court

The Court does not find that L M Sports’ argument that
See

However, the Court does agree that

3

1

Indeed, Ghotra recognized that choosing a jurisdictional basis

2

has consequences:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Therefore, a plaintiff with in personam maritime
claims has three choices: He may file suit in federal
court under the federal court’s admiralty
jurisdiction, in federal court under diversity
jurisdiction . . . or in state court. The difference
between these choices is mostly procedural; of
greatest significance is that there is no right to a
jury trial if general admiralty jurisdiction is
invoked, while it is preserved for claims based in
diversity or brought in state court.
Id. at 1054.

Here, Palla did not make a clearly delineated

10

basis for jurisdiction. The Court declines to muddy the waters

11

of the Limitation Action to avail Palla of a right she never

12

clearly invoked.

13

The Ninth Circuit has stated that “whether the limitation

14

question must await the trial of the liability issue is largely

15

a matter for the district court’s discretion under the

16

circumstances of each case.”

17

963 (9th Cir. 1983).

18

circumstances of this case, an initial bench trial on the

19

Limitation Action issues and a separate jury trial on damages,

20

if necessary, would be more convenient, expeditious, economical

21

and efficient. Accordingly, LM Sports suggested manner of

22

presentation of the issues in this case is adopted by the Court.

23
24

Newton v. Shipman, 718 F.2d 959,

The Court finds that, under the

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants LM Sports’

25

request to bifurcate the Limitation Action issues from the issue

26

of damages. The Court also grants LM Sports’ request to conduct

27

trial on the Limitation Action first. The Limitation Action trial

28

will be a bench trial. If a trial on the issue of damages is
4

1

necessary, that trial will be to a jury but will not immediately

2

follow the Court trial on the Limitation Action. Rather, the date

3

and time for this jury trial will be set by the Court after

4

consulting the parties. The bench trial on the Limitation Action

5

will commence on February 25, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 1, 2019

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5