Lyles et al v. RDP Company et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion to Bifurcate; Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 6/11/15: The issue of damages relating to the claims made in the third-party complaint shall be bifurcated and the action stayed with respect to those issues. The issues with respect to liability relating to the claims made in the third-party complaint shall not be bifurcated or stayed. cc: Counsel (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-00021-TBR

PAT N. LYLES, JANICE N. COPE,
CHARLES STORY, and CINDY STORY

Plaintiffs,

v.
LAFARGE WEST, INC.

Defendant,

and
RDP COMPANY

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.

Third-Party Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.’s Motion to
Bifurcate Trial and Stay Claims Related to the Third-Party Complaint. (Docket No. 37.) RDP Company
and Lafarge West, Inc., have each responded, (Docket Nos. 39, 40), and Martin Marietta has replied,
(Docket No. 43). Fully briefed, the matter stands ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below,
the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Martin Marietta’s motion.
Factual Background
As the Court has previously stated, this lawsuit arises from the alleged breach of a limestone lease
concerning realty in Caldwell County, Kentucky. By a lease dated August 1, 1977, Plaintiffs leased
certain limestone rights to RDP Company’s predecessor, Fredonia Valley Quarries, Inc. In 1997, RDP,
the lessee, entered a sublease that entitled Martin Marietta to limestone and related rights conveyed under
the 1977 lease. Martin Marietta has since assigned the sublease to Defendant Lafarge West, Inc. In the
instant action, Plaintiffs contend that the sublessees’ various quarry operations and activities have

1

breached the lease. Among their claims are that the sublessees failed to account for production royalties;
improperly utilized the premises; cut and disposed of timber that was reserved for Plaintiffs; and rendered
the premises unsuitable for agricultural endeavors. (See Docket No. 5-1.)Plaintiffs have alleged that
certain breaches occurred while Martin Marietta occupied the premises. As a result of these alleged
breaches, Plaintiffs seek damages and request that the Court terminate the lease.
In its Memorandum Opinion of September 19, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ single claim
against Martin Marietta, finding their allegation of unjust enrichment fatally defective. (See Docket No.
13.) On February 24, 2015, however, RDP levied a third-party complaint against Martin Marietta. In it,
RDP argues that although Martin Marietta assigned its sublease to Lafarge, RDP did not “expressly
release [Martin Marietta] from its obligations and duties under the Sublease.” (Docket No. 26 at 3.) RDP
therefore contends that Martin Marietta remains liable for any such obligations after its assignment to
Lafarge.

RDP argues that should Plaintiffs prove their claims against it, RDP is entitled to

indemnification from Martin Marietta for any damages awarded.
Martin Marietta now moves the Court to bifurcate the trial of RDP’s third-party claims against it
and to stay any proceedings related to such claims. Martin Marietta contends that judicial economy
weighs in favor of its motion, as a resolution of the primary claims—that is, Plaintiffs’ claims against
RDP—could render the third-party complaint against Martin Marietta moot. Both RDP and Lafarge
object to Martin Marietta’s motion only in part, arguing that while the issues related to damages should be
bifurcated and stayed, the matters surrounding liability should remain unified. (Docket Nos. 39. 40.)
Analysis
The decision to bifurcate rests firmly within the trial court’s discretion and will be undisturbed
absent abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 403 F.3d 401, 407 (6th Cir. 2005);
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Justin Combs Publ’g, 507 F.3d 470, 481 (6th Cir. 2007). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(b) provides that a court may bifurcate a matter “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to

2

expedite and economize.” “In determining whether separate trials are appropriate, the court should
consider several facts, including ‘the potential prejudice to the parties, the possible confusion of the
jurors, and the resulting inconvenience and economy.’” Wilson v. Morgan, 477 F.3d 326, 339 (6th Cir.
2007) (quoting Martin v. Heideman, 106 F.3d 1308, 1311 (6th Cir. 1997)). Courts adopt the practice
“‘where the evidence offered on two different issues will be wholly distinct, or where litigation of one
issue may obviate the need to try another issue.’” Athridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 604 F.3d 625, 635
(D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Vichare v. AMBAC Inc., 106 F.3d 457, 466 (2d Cir. 1996)).
In light of these considerations, the Court concludes that the instant case does not warrant
bifurcation. The Court acknowledges Martin Marietta’s argument that no distinct liability claims against
it remain. Should Plaintiffs’ claims against RDP fail, the need to litigate the indemnity issue will
dissolve. Such an outcome would render moot the third-party complaint against Martin Marietta.
However, the third-party claims against Martin Marietta appear to be intimately associated with Plaintiffs’
underlying claims: RDP’s third-party complaint alleges that an agency relationship existed between the
two companies, obligating Martin Marietta to ensure compliance with the lease during its occupancy.
Accordingly, the same evidence presented to establish the underlying claims may also serve as proof of
liability for the third-party claims. This likely duplication of evidence suggests that bifurcation would
serve neither judicial economy nor the convenience of the parties. Although Martin Marietta may bear no
ultimate liability, “[i]t is the interest of efficient judicial administration that is to be controlling, rather
than the wishes of the parties.” In re Bendectin Litigation, 857 F.2d 290, 307 (6th Cir. 1998). The Court
is not convinced that separate trials would yield a more just disposition of the litigation.
For the same reasons, the Court reaches a similar conclusion regarding Martin Marietta’s request
to stay discovery and any proceedings related to the third-party complaint pending resolution of the
liability issues. Allowing such a stay would facilitate the possibility of needless duplicative discovery in
both matters, with the same witnesses, documents, and legal and factual issues appearing in each of the

3

actions.

Such a result would neither advance judicial economy nor contribute to the expeditious

resolution of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court will deny Martin Marietta’s motion in this regard.
Finally, the Court turns to the portion of Martin Marietta’s motion that seeks bifurcation of issues
related to damages sought in the Third-Party Complaint.

Neither RDP nor Lafarge object to this

proposition. Therefore, the Court will grant Martin Marietta’s motion to the extent that it seeks to
bifurcate the matter of damages.
Conclusion and Order
Upon motion of the third-party defendant, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., to bifurcate trial and
stay claims related to the third-party complaint, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Martin Marietta’s motion to bifurcate trial and stay claims related to the thirdparty complaint, (Docket No. 37), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The issue of
damages relating to the claims made in the third-party complaint shall be bifurcated and the action stayed
with respect to those issues. The issues with respect to liability relating to the claims made in the thirdparty complaint shall not be bifurcated or stayed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 11, 2015

4