Ollier et al v. Sweetwater Union High School District et al

Filing 142

ORDER Granting 140 Ex Parte Motion to Bifurcate Trial Conditioned on Waiver of a Second Trial. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 7/29/2010. (mjj)

-WMC Ollier et al v. Sweetwater Union High School District et al

Doc. 142

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 VERONICA OLLIER, et al., 12 13 v. 14 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 07cv714-L(WMc) ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL CONDITIONED ON WAIVER OF A SECOND TRIAL [doc. #140] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Earlier the parties jointly sought to dismiss plaintiffs' fourth cause of action brought

18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. With dismissal of this cause of action, the parties intended to 19 "streamline the case for trial and to avoid the need for presentation of cumulative evidence." 20 (Joint Motion at 2.) Plaintiffs asserted that "the relief sought in their remaining claims [would] 21 fully address and protect their rights, and that the fourth claim seeks essentially the same relief 22 and remedies sought in the remaining claims." (Id.) Although the parties agreed to the 23 dismissal of the § 1983 claim, the Court denied the joint motion concluding that notice to all 24 class members who would be bound by the dismissal was necessary. (Order filed July 12, 2010. 25 [doc. #139]) 26 27 28
07cv714

Trial is set to commence on September 14, 2010. One of plaintiffs' original claims has

Dockets.Justia.com

1

been resolved through summary adjudication1; the remaining claims are for violation of Title IX

2 ­ failure to provide equal treatment and benefits to the class; retaliation in violation of Title IX2; 3 and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs now move to bifurcate the trial by separating their 4 § 1983 claim from the trial of the remaining claims and post-trial, voluntarily dismissing the § 5 1983 claim. 6 The district court may order separate trials of one or more issues or claims "[f]or

7 convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize." FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b). Courts 8 have broad discretion in deciding whether to bifurcate a trial and consider several factors in 9 determining whether bifurcation is appropriate. These factors include, inter alia, whether the 10 issues are clearly separable, and whether bifurcation would increase convenience and judicial 11 economy, reduce the risk of jury confusion, and avoid prejudice to the parties. See SCHWARZER, 12 TASHIMA & WAGSTAFFE, FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 16:160.4 (2010); Hirst v. 13 Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1261 (9th Cir. 1982). Separate trials, however, are not appropriate 14 when the bifurcated issues "are so intertwined" that the party opposing the bifurcation would 15 suffer prejudice should the issues be tried separately. Miller v. Fairchild Ind., Inc., 885 F.2d 16 498, 511 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1056 (1990). As the party 17 requesting bifurcation, plaintiffs here have the burden to prove that bifurcation is warranted. 18 Spectra-Physics Lasers, Inc. v. Uniphase Corp., 144 F.R.D. 99, 102 (N.D. Cal.1992). 19 According to plaintiffs, bifurcating the trial with post-trial dismissal of the § 1983 claim

20 will economize and expedite the trial, increase convenience, and not prejudice defendants. 21 Plaintiffs assert that if the § 1983 claim is bifurcated, after the trial they will combine the notice 22 of dismissal of the § 1983 claim along with any notice of judgment on the other causes of action 23 or any notice of settlement. In other words, plaintiffs pledge that whatever the outcome of the 24 trial on their two remaining Title IX claims, there will be no second trial on the § 1983 claim. 25 The summary adjudication motion was resolved in plaintiffs' favor on their second claim that defendants violated Title IX by failing to provide the class with equal participation 27 opportunities. 2 The Court has not yet entered a ruling on whether plaintiffs' retaliation claim 28 should be stricken. 26
2
07cv714
1

1

Defendants' sole objection to the bifurcation of the § 1983 claim is that plaintiffs may

2 change their minds and seek a second trial on that claim. To resolve this concern, defendants 3 suggest that an order permitting bifurcation require plaintiffs to waive their right to try the claim 4 if it is not tried with the remaining claims at trial. Plaintiffs have not responded to defendants' 5 response. Although their motion was not submitted under penalty of perjury, it appears plaintiffs 6 have clearly and unequivocally stated their intent to not go forward with a second trial under any 7 circumstance. 8 Having carefully considered the law regarding bifurcation and the facts surrounding the

9 requested relief, the Court finds that bifurcation the § 1983 cause of action will expedite the trial 10 and not prejudice defendants, and therefore GRANTS plaintiffs' ex parte motion to bifurcate the 11 trial conditioned on plaintiffs' express waiver of a second trial. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 DATED: July 27, 2010 14 15 16 COPY TO: 17 HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3
07cv714

M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge