Fields v. Ashford et al

Filing 108

ORDER Denying Defendants' 106 Motion to Bifurcate First and Third Party Claims for Trial. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANGELA J. FIELDS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-11812
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
PIERRE OCTAVIUS ASHFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE FIRST
AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS FOR TRIAL (ECF No. 106)
This diversity action arises out of an automobile accident between Plaintiff
Angela Fields and Defendant Pierre Octavius Ashford that occurred on I-96 in
Milford, Michigan. Fields’ Ford Edge crashed into back of Ashford’s semi-truck
shortly after Ashford pulled his truck from the shoulder into Fields’ lane of travel.
Fields has now brought third-party bodily injury claims against Ashford and
Defendants Corr Transport, Inc. and Dakota Lines, Inc., the owners of Ashford’s
truck. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.9-21.) Ashford has also brought a claim for
first-party No Fault benefits against Defendant Progressive Marathon Insurance
Company. (See id.) In November 2019, Ashford, Corr Transport, and Dakota Lines
moved for summary judgment. (See Mot., ECF No. 89.) The Court denied the
motion on April 8, 2020. (See Order, ECF No. 95.) The case is now set for trial.

1

On February 16, 2022, Ashford, Corr Transport, and Dakota Lines filed a
motion to bifurcate the trial in this case. (See Mot., ECF No. 106.) More specifically,
these Defendants ask that Fields’ third-party “negligence claims against them be
bifurcated from [her first-party] claims for No Fault benefits against [] Progressive.”
(Id. at ¶5, PageID.3199.) Ashford opposes bifurcation. (See Ashford Resp., ECF
No. 107.) The Court concludes that it may resolve this motion without oral
argument. See E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(f)(2).
Requests for bifurcation are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
42(b). That rule provides that “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite
and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more specific issues,
claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” Fed. Rule. Civ. Proc.
42(b). “The language of Rule 42(b) places the decision [whether] to bifurcate within
the discretion of the district court.” Saxon v. Titan-C Mnfg., Inc., 86 F.3d 553, 556
(6th Cir. 1996). See also Bath & Body Works, Inc. v. Luzier Personalized Cosmetics,
Inc., 76 F.3d 743, 747 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting that “[t]he decision whether to try
issues separately is within the sound discretion of the trial court”).
The Court has carefully reviewed Ashford’s, Corr Transport’s, and Dakota
Lines’ motion and concludes that these Defendants have not made a persuasive
showing that bifurcation is warranted here. The Court acknowledges that the claims
against Progressive and the claims against Ashford, Corr Transport, and Dakota
2

Lines have different elements, but any risk of prejudice or juror confusion can be
meaningfully addressed through a clear set of jury instructions at trial. Thus, prior
to trial, the Court will provide Ashford, Corr Transport, and Dakota Lines a full
opportunity to present a proposed set of jury instructions that would alleviate both
potential juror confusion and/or prejudice to the Defendants. See Kelley v. Steel
Transp., Inc., 2011 WL 1690066, at *4 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2011) (denying motion
to bifurcate because, among other things, proper jury instruction could reasonably
be expected to eliminate risk of unfair prejudice); Brumfield v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
2007 WL 9770235, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2007) (explaining that court had denied
motion to bifurcate because “appropriate jury instructions would avoid any possible
prejudice to Defendants”).
Ashford, Corr Transport, and Dakota lines counter that this Court should
follow the Michigan Supreme Court’s endorsement of the bifurcated approach in
Harry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 728 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2007). Like here,
Harry arose out of an automobile accident. The plaintiff brought both (1) a claim
for first-party No Fault benefits and (2) an uninsured motorist claim. The claims
were tried together before a single jury. On appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court,
that court vacated the jury’s verdict and directed that, on remand, the state circuit
court should hold “a bifurcated retrial with respect to plaintiff’s uninsured motorist
and personal insurance protection benefit claims.” Id.
3

But the decision in Harry contained no substantive analysis of the standards
for bifurcation. Nor did it explain why bifurcation was appropriate in that case. It
is therefore difficult for this Court to understand why the court in Harry endorsed
the bifurcated approach. Perhaps because Harry did not announce a governing rule
or standard, trial courts in Michigan have continued to deny post-Harry motions to
bifurcate trials in automobile accident cases much like the motion Ashford, Corr
Transport, and Dakota Lines have filed in this case. See, e.g., Manuel v. Geico
Indemnity Co., 2014 WL 11207348 (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct., Nov. 3, 2014) (denying
motion to bifurcate first and third-party claims).1

In any event, since Harry

concerned a matter of procedure rather than substantive Michigan law, it is not
binding upon this Court in this diversity action. See Legg v. Chopra, 286 F.3d 286,
289 (6th Cir. 2002) (“In federal diversity actions, state law governs substantive
issues and federal law governs procedural issues.”). For all of these reasons, the
Court is not persuaded that Harry requires (or even meaningfully supports)
bifurcation here.

1

In Manuel, the defendant who sought to bifurcate the proceedings made arguments
that closely tracked the arguments that Ashford, Corr Transport, and Dakota Lines
have made here – including arguments based on the Michigan Supreme Court’s
decision in Harry. See Def.’s Br., Manuel, 2014 WL 11207211 (Wayne. Cty. Cir.
Ct. Oct. 22, 2014).
4

For the reasons explained above, Ashford’s, Corr Transport’s, and Dakota
Lines’ motion to bifurcate (ECF No. 106) is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2022

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on March 29, 2022, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

5