Miles v. Unified School District No. 500, Kansas City, Kansas, et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part 20 Defendant Unified School District No. 500, Kansas City, Kansas's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction and Stay of Proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendant's motion for a stay of proceedings is granted. The parties shall conduct discovery and pretrial proceedings pursuant to this Order. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 10/26/2018. (mig)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

SUSAN M. MILES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-2685-DDC-TJJ

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 500,
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS and
VALERIE CASTILLO,
Defendants.
____________________________________

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the court is defendant Unified School District No. 500, Kansas City, Kansas’s
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction and Stay of Proceedings. Doc. 20. Plaintiff
Susan M. Miles filed a Response. Doc. 23. Defendant filed a Reply. Doc. 30. The court
conducted a hearing on defendant’s motion on October 18, 2018. Considering the parties’
presentation of the issues at the hearing and further clarification of dispositive issues, the court
now stays the case proceedings until the court rules on the enforceability of a purported
settlement agreement between the parties.
I.

Facts
Plaintiff is a former teacher at McKinley Elementary School. She has sued her former

employer—Unified School District No. 500, Kansas City, Kansas (“the School District”)—and
Valerie Castillo—the Principal at McKinley Elementary. Plaintiff brings claims under the
Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), and certain Kansas state employment

laws. In response, the School District contends that the court should enforce a Mutual
Separation and Release Agreement (“the Agreement”) the parties purported to agree to before
plaintiff filed suit. Defendant contends the Agreement, if valid, provides a complete defense to
plaintiff’s claims. Doc. 20 at 3. Plaintiff contends she signed the Agreement based on fraud or
duress. Doc. 23 at 2.
II.

Analysis
The Agreement’s enforceability is a threshold issue warranting partial discovery, a

separate trial, and a stay of case proceedings. The court bases its decision on the development of
the parties’ briefing on defendant’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction and Stay
of Proceedings, as well as the parties’ candid responses at the October 18 hearing.
First, the court will limit discovery to whether a Mutual Separation and Release
Agreement signed by plaintiff and defendant before plaintiff filed suit is enforceable. The court
concludes that resolution of this threshold issue will help to “secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination” of this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. So, the court directs plaintiff to
propound its written discovery on this issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 as directed
during the October 18 hearing. Defendant must respond within 14 days of receiving plaintiff’s
discovery requests. The court further directs the parties to notify Magistrate Judge Teresa J.
James promptly of any discovery disputes. Naturally, they first must confer about it in an effort
to resolve any disputes before contacting Judge James.
Second, following discovery, the court will conduct a bench trial on this issue—the
enforceability of the Agreement—per the parties’ stipulation at the October 18 hearing. The
court may order separate trials “‘[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and
economize.’” Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’g Emps. in Aerospace v. Boeing Co., Nos. 05-1251-JWB, 07-

2

1043-JWB, 2018 WL 3495855, at *5 (D. Kan. July 20, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b)).
And, “[c]ourts have ‘broad discretion in deciding whether to sever issues for trial.’” Id. (quoting
Easton v. City of Boulder, 776 F.2d 1441, 1447 (10th Cir. 1985)). “‘The party seeking
bifurcation has the burden of showing that separate trials are proper in light of the general
principle that a single trial tends to lessen the delay, expense and inconvenience.’” Id. (citing
Belisle v. BNSF Ry. Co., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1250 (D. Kan. 2010) (further citation omitted)).
The court, in its discretion, finds that bifurcation on the threshold issue of the
Agreement’s enforceability is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). See Locke v. Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 309 F.2d 811 (10th Cir. 1962) (holding that trial court did not abuse
its discretion by granting a separate trial on the issue of whether mutual mistake prevented
defendant from raising existence of release as affirmative defense). First, resolving the threshold
issue of the Agreement’s validity will promote the expedient and fair resolution of the case
because defendant contends that the Agreement provides a complete defense to all of plaintiff’s
claims. And, the parties have stipulated to a bench trial on this issue, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a),
42(b); thus, a jury need not be empaneled, minimizing the burden on judicial resources. For
convenience, and to expedite and economize this case, the court determines a separate trial on
the threshold issue of the Agreement’s enforceability is warranted.
The court thus sets a pretrial conference on this issue for January 24, 2019, in Courtroom
#476 at 4:00 p.m. A trial date on this issue will be set at the pretrial conference. Last, all other
case proceedings will be stayed until the court resolves this threshold issue.
III.

Conclusion
For reasons explained above, the court grants defendant’s Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order/Injunction and Stay of Proceedings in part.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction and Stay of Proceedings (Doc. 20) is granted in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion for a stay of proceedings is
granted. The parties shall conduct discovery and pretrial proceedings pursuant to this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of October, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge

4