ZAGKLARA v. SPRAGUE ENERGY CORP

Filing 150

ORDER ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE re 129 Motion to Bifurcate By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
EIRINI ZAGKLARA, individually and
as personal representative of the estate of
IOANNIS ZAGKLARA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPRAGUE ENERGY CORP.,
Defendant & Third Party
Plaintiff,
v.
LEOPARD SHIPPING et al.,
Third Party Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 2:10-cv-445-GZS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial (ECF No. 129). Both Defendant
Sprague Energy Corp. (“Defendant” or “Sprague”) and Third Party Defendants Leopard Shipping
Company Limited and A.M. Nomikos Transworld Maritime Agencies S.A. (together, “Ship
Owners”) filed responses in which they opposed bifurcating the bench trial of the third party claims
from the jury trial of Plaintiff’s claims (ECF Nos. 136 & 139). In considering the issue of
bifurcation, the Court also recently has received the Ship Owners’ Notice of Intent to File a Motion
for Summary Judgment and Need for Pre-Filing Conference (ECF No. 149).
The Court initially notes that the Ship Owners’ Response indicated that they do not wish to
participate in jury selection or exercise any pre-emptory challenges. Thus, to the extent that
1

Plaintiff’s Motion sought to limit the Ship Owner’s participation in jury selection, the Motion is
GRANTED IN PART without objection.
In all other respects, the Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED. On the record presented, the Court
does not believe that bifurcation would expedite or economize the resolution of this case. Likewise,
the Court does not believe that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a consolidated trial particularly where,
as here, the third party claims will be decided by the Court rather than the jury. This denial is
without prejudice to the extent that Sprague or the Ship Owners seek to present any particular
witness or exhibit at trial and such witness or exhibit pertains solely to the third party claims and
defenses. To the extent practicable, the Court is willing to consider receiving such evidence outside
the hearing of the jury during trial in an effort to streamline the presentation of evidence to the jury.
The parties shall confer and attempt to determine what, if any, evidence is relevant solely to the third
party claims and be prepared to discuss the presentation of such evidence at the to-be-scheduled final
pretrial conference.
On a somewhat related note, the Court will not schedule a Local Rule 56H Conference in
response to the Ship Owner’s January 2, 2013 Notice (ECF No. 149). Having reviewed the
transcript of the October 5, 2012 Conference of Counsel, the issue of another round of summary
judgment briefing was clearly discussed. However, counsel for Ship Owners clearly indicated that
he understood that the third party claims were proceeding to trial. Following the Conference, the
Court ordered that any legal issues that could be resolved prior to trial “be queued up by way of a
motion filed no later than October 22, 2012.” (Report of Pretrial Conference & Order (ECF No. 123)
at 3.) Having failed to press the issue of summary judgment at the conference, having failed to file a
motion or notice by October 22, 2012, and then having opposed bifurcation of the trial, the Court
2

believes the Ship Owners have forfeited any right to have this Court consider whether there is basis
upon which they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law prior to any trial of the merits. Thus, the
Court would deny as untimely any summary judgment motion filed by the Third Party Defendants on
or after January 2, 2013.
As briefly explained herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial is hereby GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 7th day of January, 2013.

3