Bayou Fleet Partnership LLP v. St. Charles Parish

Filing 228

ORDER granting in part 219 Motion to Bifurcate as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BAYOU FLEET PARTNERSHIP, L.L.P.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 10-1557

ST. CHARLES PARISH

SECTION “B”(3)
ORDER AND REASONS

Before

the

Court

are

Plaintiff

Bayou

Fleet

Partnership

L.L.P.’s (“Bayou Fleet”) Motion to Bifurcate, Defendant St. Charles
Parish’s (“Parish”) Opposition to the Motion and Bayou Fleet’s
subsequent Reply in support of the Motion.
222, & 225).

(Rec. Doc. Nos. 219,

Accordingly, and for the reasons articulated below,

IT IS ORDERED that Bayou Fleet’s Motion to Bifurcate be
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as explained below.
Cause of Action and Facts of Case:
Bayou Fleet is the owner of four tracts of Mississippi River
batture property located on the west bank of the Mississippi River
in the town of Hahnville located in the Parish.

This case arises

out of the Parish’s denial of Bayou Fleet’s applications to rezone
the property in 2009 and 2010.
132-1 at 3).

(Rec. Docs. No. 130-4, 138-1, &

Bayou Fleet’s property currently has existing barge

fleeting and sand pits, and the proposed changes include plans for
a

tower

crane,

machine

shop,

drydock,

conveyor

stockpile area, and enlargement of the sand pits.

belt

system,

(Rec. Doc. No.

162-7 at 143-44). The Parish Council asserts that it voted to deny
rezoning in part based on Parish citizens’ concerns about increased

sand on the road, truck traffic, vibrations and air pollution,
received via e-mail and letter correspondence.

(Rec. Docs. No.

130-1 at 9, & 132-1 at 8).
On May 25, 2010, Bayou Fleet filed a § 1983 substantive due
process and equal protection complaint against the Parish.

(Rec.

Doc. No. 130-1 at 1). Both Bayou Fleet and the Parish subsequently
filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Rec. Docs. No. 130 &
132). Bayou Fleet claimed that the Parish’s refusals to rezone the
property were irrational as a matter of law and sought summary
judgment on its § 1983 Equal Protection Claim. (Rec. Doc. No. 1301).

The Parish sought summary judgment on both Bayou Fleet’s §

1983 Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection claims, asserting
that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Parish’s
decisions were supported by a rational basis, and were therefore
constitutional.

(Rec. Doc. No. 132-1).

The Court held oral argument on the motions on September 26,
2012 and ordered post-hearing briefs on the implication of a mixed
motive analysis in an Equal Protection claim context.
No. 167 & 168).

(Rec. Docs.

Thereafter, the Court granted summary judgment in

favor of the Parish on Bayou Fleet’s Substantive Due Process claim,
and denied summary judgment on Bayou Fleet’s Equal Protection
claim.

(Rec. Doc. No. 204).

The Court ruled that a genuine issue

of material fact remained as to the “fit between the articulated
legitimate [government] purpose (citizens’ concerns) and the actual

2

treatment

of

neighbors.”

Bayou

Fleet

differently

from

similarly

situated

(Rec. Doc. No. 204 at 8).

In the instant motion, Bayou Fleet seeks to bifurcate trial on
the issues of liability, injunctive relief, and damages.1

(Rec.

Doc. No. 219-1 at 2).
Law and Analysis:
“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and
economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more
separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party
claims.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) (emphasis added).

“Whether to

conduct separate trials under the Rule [42(b)] is ‘a matter left to
the

sound

discretion

of

the

trial

court

circumstances of the litigation before it.’”

on

the

basis

of

Alaniz v. Zamora-

Quezada, 591 F.3d 761, 773-74 (5th Cir. 2009), citing 9A Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §
2388 (3d ed. 2008).

In the context of Civil Rights actions,

several district courts have bifurcated the issue of liability and
damages in the interest of judicial economy and to avoid juror
confusion, when there is little overlap between the evidence and
witnesses for each issue.

See Doctor John’s, Inc. v. City of Sioux

city, Iowa, 438 F.Supp. 2d. 1005, 1041 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Evans v.
State of Conn., 168 F.R.D. 118, 121 (D. Conn. 1996); Gauthreaux v.

1

Jury trial in this matter is set for February 4, 2013.
pretrial conference is set for January 24, 2013.

3

The final

Baylor Univ. Medical Center, 876 F.Supp. 847, 848 (N.D. Tex. 1994).
In a patent infringement action, a district court relying on Fed.
R. Civ. P. 42(b) has ordered distinct phases with respect to
liability and damages, as an alternative to ordering separate
trials. Laitram Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 791 F.Supp. 113, 115
(E.D. La. 1992).
In Doctor John’s, the plaintiff was an “adult entertainment
business”

challenging

the

constitutionality

of

city

zoning

ordinances regulating the location of the business within city
limits.

Id., 438 F.Supp. 2d at 1010.

The trial court granted the

plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate trial on the issues of liability
and damages.

Id. at 1041.

In it’s decision, the trial court noted

that because factual issues of liability had to be determined
before raising the issue of damages to the jury, holding trial on
both

issues

prejudicial.”

simultaneously

was

“potentially

confusing

and

Id.

As in Doctor John’s, the issue of remedy or damages is
triggered only if the jury finds for Bayou Fleet on the issue of
liability, which hinges on a factual determination under an Equal
Protection analysis.

There is likely to be little overlap between

the evidence and witnesses presented in order to prove the factual
issue of mixed motive for the Parish’s decision to deny rezoning
and the actual damages suffered by Bayou Fleet as a result.
Therefore, like the Court in Doctor John’s, this Court finds that

4

separating the factual issue of liability from the issue of
remedies or damages would reduce juror confusion and promote
judicial economy.
However, under Rule 42(b), the bifurcation of issues does not
always necessitate fully separate trials. In Laitram, the district
court held a single proceeding but divided the trial into separate
phases, whereby the jury first determined liability, and if the
defendant was found liable, a trial on the issue of damages was
then presented to the same jury.

Laitram, 791 F.Supp. at 115.

Similarly, in the present matter, separation of the liability
and remedies/damages issues into separate phases rather than fully
separate trials will best promote the interest of judicial economy
while reducing juror confusion.

Accordingly, trial on liability

and remedies/damages will be held in separate phases of the same
proceeding.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14TH day of January, 2013.

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5