Adame et al v. Bank of America

Filing 121

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER CLAIMS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIALS (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2010)

Adame et al v. Bank of America

Doc. 121

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: December 14, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge IT IS SO ORDERED. v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant. / RICHARD ADAME, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C 09-129 SI ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER CLAIMS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 14, 2010, the Court held a hearing on defendant's motion to sever claims, or in the alternative, to bifurcate the trials of plaintiffs Bender and Davis. The Court has broad discretion regarding whether to sever claims under Rule 21, Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1297 (9th Cir. 2001), and whether to bifurcate trials. Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court finds that there will be substantial overlap in the testimony of witnesses and evidence at trial regarding plaintiffs' cases, and that judicial economy, convenience, and efficiency strongly weigh in favor of a consolidated trial. The Court is unpersuaded by defendant's arguments regarding prejudice. The claims of the two plaintiffs are straightforward and the Court is confident that with the use of limiting instructions, the jury will be able to keep the claims of the plaintiffs separate. Accordingly, defendant's motion to sever or bifurcate is DENIED. (Docket No. 113).

Dockets.Justia.com