Jolly et al v. Hoegh Autoliners Shipping AS et al

Filing 267

ORDER denying 119 Defendants' Joint Motion to Bifurcate Trial into Liability and Damages Phases Under Rule 42(b). Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 3/26/2024. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
KRISTOPHER JOLLY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 3:20-cv-1150-MMH-MCR

HOEGH AUTOLINERS
SHIPPING AS, et al.,
Defendants.

/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion to
Bifurcate Trial into Liability and Damages Phases Under Rule 42(b) (Doc. 119;
Motion) filed on July 31, 2023. Plaintiffs oppose bifurcation. See Plaintiffs’
Amended Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Bifurcate
Trial into Liability and Damages Phases (Doc. 159; Response) filed on August
17, 2023. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion will be denied.
DISCUSSION
The Court presumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case.
Defendants seek bifurcation and separate trials on the issues of liability and
damages. Motion at 2. Defendants contend that bifurcation will make trial
more manageable and efficient. Id. In support of their argument, Defendants

offer three reasons for bifurcation: (1) splitting up the liability and damages
phases can potentially save the Court, jury, and witnesses time and money if
the jury returns a verdict for Defendants on the liability issue; (2) Defendants
will suffer prejudice if the jury sees evidence of burn-victim damage when
determining liability; and (3) the evidence for the two phases does not generally
overlap and, therefore, two trials would allow for the orderly presentation of
evidence. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiffs contend that bifurcation would unnecessarily
prejudice them and greatly reduce the possibility of pretrial settlement. See
Response at 1.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) states, in part, that a court “may
order a separate trial of one or more separate issues” for “convenience, to avoid
prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Courts within
the Eleventh Circuit have held that Rule 42(b) “confers broad discretion on the
district court.” Krug v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., No. 16-22810-Civ-Scola, 2017
WL 5640729, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2017) (quoting Harrington v. Cleburne
Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 251 F.3d 935, 938 (11th Cir. 2001)); see also McKenzie v.
U.S. Tennis Ass’n Inc., No. 6:22-cv-615-PGB-LHP2022 WL 19336464, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022) (“The determination of whether to bifurcate is left to
the sound discretion of the Court.”).
As a general matter, courts prefer one trial and “bifurcation is not the
usual course that should be followed.” See McKenzie, 2022 WL 19336464, at
2

*1; see also Bandsuch v. Werner Enters., Inc., No. 2:05-cv-305-FtM-34SPC,
2007 WL 9706002, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2007) (“[B]ifurcation is not
routinely granted.”). When evaluating whether bifurcation is proper, courts
look to the following factors:
(1) convenience; (2) prejudice; (3) expedition; (4) economy; (5)
whether the issues sought to be tried separately are significantly
different; (6) whether they are triable by jury or the court; (7)
whether discovery has been directed to a single trial of all issues;
(8) whether the evidence required for each issue is substantially
different; (9) whether one party would gain some unfair advantage
from separate trials; (10) whether a single trial of all issues would
create the potential for jury bias or confusion; and (11) whether
bifurcation would enhance or reduce the possibility of a pretrial
settlement.
Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. v. Bluhm, No. 6:19-cv-2300-WWB-LHP,
2022 WL 18492537, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2022) (quoting Medtronic Xomed,
Inc. v. Gyrus ENT LLC, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1334 n.2 (M.D. Fla. 2006)). The
predominant consideration, however, is “a fair and impartial trial to all
litigants through a balance of benefit and prejudice.” Kremer v. Lysich, No.
3:19-cv-887-BJD-JBT, 2022 WL 18358957, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 27, 2022)
(quoting Medtronic Xomed, Inc., 440 F. Supp. 2d at 1334). The party seeking
bifurcation bears the burden of demonstrating that bifurcation serves these
purposes. See Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 2022 WL 18492537 at *1.
Here, Plaintiffs are firefighters who responded to a fire onboard the
Hoegh Xiamen while it was docked in Jacksonville, Florida in June 2020. See
3

First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5; Amended Complaint) ¶¶ 5, 17. The dispute
arises out of injuries that Plaintiffs allege they suffered as a result of fighting
that fire. Id. ¶ 45. Discovery in this case has proceeded for the last two and a
half years with the expectation of a single trial. Response at 1. At trial, both
parties plan to call Plaintiffs, physicians, and experts to testify. See, e.g.,
Response at 8. To maximize efficiency on medical testimony, the parties each
seek to present physicians to testify regarding multiple Plaintiffs. Id.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that bifurcation often reduces
the possibility of pretrial settlement. See, e.g., Medtronic Xomed, Inc., 440 F.
Supp. 2d at 1334 n.2 (noting that courts should consider whether bifurcation
would enhance or reduce the possibility of pretrial settlement). Indeed, as a
colleague on this Court has noted, in some cases bifurcation only reduces the
likelihood of settlement. See, e.g., NuVasive, Inc. v. Absolute Med., LLC, No.
6:17-cv-2206-CEM-GJK, 2021 WL 7184488, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 12, 2021)
(“As to the remaining applicable factors considered by courts in this circuit,
these too weigh against bifurcation . . . bifurcation would greatly reduce the
possibility of pretrial settlement.”). While not dispositive, this weighs in favor
of denying the Motion.
Defendants argue that the Court, jury, and witnesses could all save time
and money should the Court grant bifurcation and Defendants win during the
liability phase. Motion at 1–3. This argument fails to supply a justification for
4

bifurcation because it merely describes the nature of a trial; “a civil case by its
very nature almost always involves the dual issues of liability and damages.”
Dzafic v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., No. 8:08-0026-T-24EAJ, 2008 WL
3874602, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2008).
Defendants also contend that there is a special potential for jury
prejudice arising from damages evidence, especially with burn victims. See
Motion at 17–18. To prevent the jury from wrongfully assigning liability,
Defendants argue that bifurcation is necessary so that exhibits and testimony
as to the damages caused by the burns are not introduced in the liability phase.
Id.

Defendants rely on Thomas v. C.G. Tate Construction Co. for the

proposition that burn injuries “incite[] extreme sympathy for the plaintiff and
would inflame [the jury].” Thomas v. C.G. Tate Constr. Co., 465 F. Supp. 566,
569 (D.S.C. 1979). Conveniently, Defendants neglect to mention that the court
in Thomas did allow photographic evidence of the burn victim to be presented
to the jury during the trial. Id. at 571. Here, Defendants have not presented
any evidence of a “special or unique risk of prejudice such that any risk
outweighs the additional inconvenience, expense, and delay that would result
from bifurcation.” Krug, 2017 WL 5640729, at *2.
Finally, Defendants argue that bifurcation facilitates convenience
because the evidence can be split neatly into liability and damages trials and
that, except for the testimony of Plaintiffs, no overlap of evidence exists. See
5

Motion at 14. Defendants through this argument, however, point out that
there will be duplicative testimony; if bifurcation is granted, Plaintiffs will
have to testify in the liability phase and then again during the damages phase.
Id. at 16. Eleven plaintiffs are still parties to this suit. Even if in-court
testimony moves at an expeditious rate, this likely still equates to an extra
week of testimony. In other words, bifurcation of the liability and damages
phases will not be expedient. This fact alone suffices to deny bifurcation.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Defendants’ Joint Motion to Bifurcate Trial into Liability and Damages
Phases Under Rule 42(b) (Doc. 119) DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 26th day of
March, 2024.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

6