Parmar v. City of Aurora, Colorado et al

Filing 39

ORDER Denying Defendants' 32 Motion to Bifurcate Individual and Monell Claims and Motion for Stay of Discovery for Monell Claims, by Judge William J. Martinez on 4/28/2021.(angar, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 20-cv-2801-WJM-NRN
P.J. PARMAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, and
JUSTIN E. HENDERSON, in his official and individual capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE INDIVIDUAL AND
MONELL CLAIMS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY
FOR MONELL CLAIMS

This civil rights dispute arises out of an interaction in which Plaintiff P.J. Parmar
alleges that Defendant Justin E. Henderson, a law enforcement officer with the Aurora
Police Department, pointed a gun at Plaintiff simply because he honked his car horn at
Henderson, who was blocking the entrance to, and trespassing on, Plaintiff’s property.
(ECF No. 14 ¶ 2.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Henderson and City of Aurora, Colorado (jointly,
“Defendants”): unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment; excessive force under
the Fourth Amendment; excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment; and denial
of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 14.) Defendants
answered the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22.)
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Individual and Monell Claims
and Motion for Stay of Discovery for Monell Claims (“Motion”), filed on December 21,

2020. (ECF No. 32.) On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (ECF
No. 33), and on January 20, 2021, Defendants replied (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff also filed
a notice of supplemental authorities. (ECF No. 35.)
In the Motion, Defendants request that the Court bifurcate claims against the City
of Aurora that are separate from claims alleged against Henderson. (ECF No. 32 at 2.)
Defendants argue that bifurcation is appropriate to separate the Monell claims from the
individual claims because it will “serve the interests of judicial economy and will prevent
substantial prejudice to Defendant Henderson.” (Id.) Specifically, Defendants assert
that resolution of the claims against Henderson could obviate the need to litigate the
municipal liability claims because an underlying constitutional violation by an individual
is required to impose municipal liability. (Id. at 3.) Should the Court or a jury find no
underlying constitutional violation, Defendants are of the view that the vast scope of
Monell discovery could be rendered unnecessary. (Id.)
Additionally, Defendants contend that the financial and time burdens associated
with litigating this case will be significant. (Id. at 5.) Discovery for the municipal liability
claims is anticipated to cover approximately 28 other incidents alleged in the Amended
Complaint. (Id.) Further, Defendants argue the issues are separable, and bifurcation
would prevent substantial prejudice to Henderson without prejudicing Plaintiff. (Id. at 6–
7.) Finally, if the claims are bifurcated, Defendants request a stay of discovery related
to the Monell claims. (Id. at 9.)
Plaintiff responds that bifurcation of discovery and trial would “severely prejudice
Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 33 at 4.) Plaintiff underscores that Plaintiff does not have the
resources to undertake a years-long fight over Henderson’s individual liability, and then

2

should Plaintiff prevail, begin another legal battle against the municipality. (Id.) Plaintiff
identifies potential issues which could arise as a result of bifurcation, such as repeated
disputes regarding whether any given discovery request addresses the claims against
individual defendants or those against the municipality. (Id. at 11–12.) Finally, Plaintiff
argues Defendants have not met their burden on a motion to stay. (Id. at 13.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) provides the district court with broad
discretion to order a separate trial of one or more separate issues or claims “[f]or
convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” United States ex rel.
Bahrani v. ConAgra, Inc., 624 F.3d 1275, 1283 (10th Cir. 2010). The decision to
bifurcate a trial “must be made with regard to judicial efficiency, judicial resources, and
the likelihood that a single proceeding will unduly prejudice either party or confuse the
jury.” York v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10th Cir. 1996). “Bifurcation is not
an abuse of discretion if such interests favor separation of issues and the issues are
clearly separable.” Angelo v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 11 F.3d 957, 964 (10th Cir.
1993). But bifurcation may be an abuse of discretion if it is unfair or prejudicial to a
party. See id.
The Court has carefully considered the parties’ thorough briefing on this issue.
Despite Defendants’ arguments, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and will not bifurcate the
individual liability claims from those related to entity liability. Bifurcation in this case,
where there is close connection and overlap between the individual and entity liability
claims, would be costly, waste time, and result in duplicative litigation. Moreover,
bifurcation of discovery would also likely result in wasteful and unnecessary disputes
regarding what discovery relates to the individual claims as opposed to the Monell

3

claims. See Estate of McClain by & through McClain v. City of Aurora, Colo., 2021 WL
307505, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2021) (denying defendants’ motion to stay discovery
and to bifurcate individual and Monell claims, and motion for stay of discovery for Monell
claims). The Court reached a similar conclusion in another § 1983 civil rights action
based on excessive force and sees no reason to deviate from that reasoning here. See
Valdez v. Motyka, 2020 WL 3963717, at *17 (D. Colo. July 13, 2020) (denying motion to
bifurcate where Monell claims are “closely connected” to individual liability claims); see
also Estate of Melvin by & through Melvin v. City of Colo. Springs, Colo., 2021 WL
50872, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 5, 2021) (“Bifurcation of Plaintiff’s individual and municipal
liability claims would allow this case to languish on the Court’s docket, potentially for
years, and would be inconsistent with the Court’s obligation to oversee ‘the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.’”).
For the reasons described above, Defendants City of Aurora, Colorado and
Justin E. Henderson’s Motion to Bifurcate Individual and Monell Claims and Motion for
Stay of Discovery for Monell Claims (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.
Dated this 28th day of April, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

______________________
William J. Martinez
United States District Judge

4