U. S. Technology Corporation v. Ramsay et al

Filing 109

ORDER denying 103 Motion for advisory jury; granting 105 Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 6/24/2011 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
U.S. TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
VS.

PLAINTIFF/
COUNTER-DEFENDANT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-cv-218(DCB)(JMR)

PAT RAMSAY
and
DELTA LOGGING & COMPANY, INC.

DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT/
COUNTER-CLAIMANT
ORDER

This

cause

is

before

the

Court

on

the

plaintiff

U.S.

Technology Corporation’s motion for advisory jury (docket entry
103), and on the defendants Pat Ramsay and Delta Logging & Company,
Inc.’s motion for bifurcation (docket entry 105). Having carefully
considered the motions and responses, and being fully advised in
the premises, the Court finds as follows:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[i]n all
actions not triable of right by a jury the court upon motion or of
its own initiative may try any issue with an advisory jury ....”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(c).

The use of an advisory jury is strictly

discretionary, but in any event the Court is obligated to make its
own

independent

findings

of

fact

and

conclusions

of

law.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
In this case, the plaintiff’s claims for fraud and nuisance
per se will be tried before a jury.

The remaining claims and

counterclaims will be tried before the Court without a jury.

The

Court does not find that the use of an advisory jury would be
beneficial.

A jury will already be empaneled; however, to retain

the jury to hear and advise on the remaining claims would be both
unduly burdensome and inefficient.

Additional time would be

required on the part of the parties and the Court to instruct the
jury on the remaining claims.

Moreover, the Court does not find

that the advisory process would be helpful; instead, it could
unnecessarily

complicate

and

confuse

the

issues,

and

could

misdirect the jury’s attention to matters not properly within their
purview.

Additional evidentiary problems could also result.

The Court also has the discretion to require separate trials
on various issues or claims in a case:
The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid
prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to
expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any
claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim,
or any separate issue or of any number of claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues,
always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as
declared by the Seventh Amendment to the constitution or
as given by a statute of the United States.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b).

The Court deems it appropriate to try the

plaintiff’s state law claims separately from the remainder of the
claims and counterclaims in this case.
unfairly prejudice either side.

Such an approach will not

At the conclusion of the jury

phase of the trial, the Court will hear the remainder of the claims
and counterclaims.

The Court will also bifurcate liability and

damages under CERCLA.

2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff U.S. Technology
Corporation’s motion for advisory jury (docket entry 103) is
DENIED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants Pat Ramsay and Delta
Logging & Company, Inc.’s motion for bifurcation (docket entry 105)
is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of June, 2011.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3