SAMS HOTEL GROUP, LLC v. ENVIRONS, INC. et al

Filing 163

ORDER denying 149 Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/9/2011. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SAMS HOTEL GROUP, LLC d/b/a
HOMEWOOD SUITES HOTEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ENVIRONS, INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-0930-TWP-TAB

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Environs, Inc. (“Environs”) Motion to
Bifurcate Trial for Trying Issues of Liability and Damages (Dkt. 149). The issues have been
fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court now DENIES Environs’ Motion to
Bifurcate its July 11, 2011 trial.
The Court will not recite the facts, as the parties involved are well versed on the facts.
Through this Motion, Environs argues that the costs of trying damages would be premature when
viewed in the context of a $70,000.00 limitation on damages. Plaintiff SAMS Hotel Group, LLC
d/b/a Homewood Suites Hotel (“SAMS”) opposes this Motion on several grounds. SAMS first
asserts that if this Court were to end its analysis at liability, there would not be an appealable
judgment. SAMS secondly contends that for efficiency reasons, both liability and damages
should be determined now so that if the limitation of damages is not upheld on appeal; the Court
would only need look to its prior determination of damages. Lastly, SAMS argues that the issue
of damages is too intertwined with the determination of liability to be tried separately.
A court may order a separate trial of any issue when a separate trial would be “in
furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to

expedition and economy....” MCI Communications v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081,
1166 (7th Cir. 1983); Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b); see also Berry v. Deloney, 28 F.3d 604, 610 (7th Cir.
1994). Bifurcation is proper when: 1) it serves the interest of judicial economy or is done to
prevent prejudice to a party; 2) it does not unfairly prejudice the nonmoving party; and 3) it does
not violate the 7th Amendment. This Court has discretion to bifurcate pursuant to Rule 42(b)
and considers the benefits and drawbacks to bifurcation on a case by case basis. See Krocka v.
City of Chi., 203 F.3d 507, 516 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. James River
Corp. of Va., 131 F.R.D. 607, 608 (N.D. Ga. 1989). The party seeking bifurcation bears the
burden of proving that bifurcation is warranted. Real v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 195 F.R.D. 618,
620 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
In this matter, bifurcation does little to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of this action.” BASF Catalysts LLC v. Aristo, Inc., No. 07-222, 2009 WL
523123, at * 1 (N.D. Ind. Mar.2, 2009). As argued by SAMS, judicial economy would support
the trying of both liability and damages in one trial. Trying both issues simultaneously would
ensure not only the speedy resolution of this case, but additionally provide for a situation where a
subsequent appellate ruling would not warrant an additional trial. Because Environs has not
demonstrated that bifurcation is warranted, Environs’ Motion to Bifurcate Trial for Trying Issues
of Liability and Damages (Dkt. 149) is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
06/09/2011
Date: ______________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution attached.

2

Distribution to:
Michael Paul Bishop
COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER
[e-mail]
John Michael Bowman
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Colin Edington Connor
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Frederick D. Emhardt
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
M. Edward Krause III
COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER
[e-mail]
Donna C. Marron
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Brett E. Nelson
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
George M. Plews
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]

3