Wilson Road Development Corporation et al v. Fronabarger Concreters, Inc. et al

Filing 249

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 216 MOTION to Continue TRIAL DATE OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO SEVER CERCLA CLAIMS BY AND AGAINST FRONABARGER CONCRETERS, INC. filed by Defendant Fronabarger Concreters, Inc. motion is Granted in Part and De nied in Part. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Fronabarger Concreters, Inc., to continue the trial date or, alternatively, to sever claims [Doc. # 216] is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the CERCLA clai ms, counterclaims andcrossclaims asserted by and between all parties in this action are severed from the common law claims against defendant Fronabarger Concreters, Inc.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the common law claims against defendant Fronabarger Concreters, Inc., remain set for trial on August 18, 2014, in the Southeastern Division. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 8/12/14. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
WILSON ROAD DEVELOPMENT,
CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FRONABARGER CONCRETERS, INC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-CV-84 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant Fronabarger
Concreters, Inc., to continue the trial date or, alternatively, to sever claims. Plaintiffs
have filed a response, and the issues are fully briefed.
In this action, plaintiffs assert common law claims of trespass, negligence, and
nuisance against Fronabarger as well as claims based on the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601,
et seq. In addition, Fronabarger and defendants Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren
Missouri and Citizens Electric Corporation (the “Utility Defendants”) assert CERCLA
claims against one another and against the plaintiffs. In the instant motion,
Fronabarger asks that the CERCLA claims asserted against it be tried separately from
the common law claims.
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, “[f]or
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.” “District courts possess broad discretion to bifurcate issues for

purposes of trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b).” O’Dell v. Hercules, Inc., 904 F.2d 1194,
1201-02 (8th Cir. 1990). “In exercising discretion, district courts should consider the
preservation of constitutional rights, clarity, judicial economy, the likelihood of
inconsistent results and possibilities for confusion.” Id. at 1202 (citing Koch Fuels, Inc.
v. Cargo of 13,000 Barrels of No. 2 Oil, 704 F.2d 1038, 1042 (8th Cir. 1983)).
Previously, the Court granted the Utility Defendants’ motion to sever the CERCLA
claims asserted against them. The Court determined that severance was warranted
due to the difference between the CERCLA claims made against Fronabarger and those
made against the Utility Defendants and due to the fact that the only claims that were
triable by a jury were the common law claims against Fronabarger. After further
consideration of the issue, the Court now concludes that a severance of all CERCLA
claims, counterclaims and crossclaims from all common law claims would be
appropriate to preserve clarity of the issues, avoid confusion of the jury, and promote
the interests of efficiency and economy.
The Court does not share plaintiffs’ belief that separate trials will require them
to present the same evidence twice.

Evidence the plaintiffs present to support their

common law claims against Fronabarger will be heard by the Court as well as by the
jury and will be considered, to the extent relevant, in the non-jury trial against
Fronabarger. Likewise, the plaintiffs will not have to present to the jury evidence that
pertains only to the CERCLA claims against Fronabarger.
The trial of this case is scheduled to begin on August 18, 2014. Because the
Court has already ruled that the CERCLA claims against the Utility Defendants will be
tried at a later date, the trial of the common law claims against Fronabarger will

-2-

proceed on the scheduled trial date.

Fronabarger has not persuaded the Court that

the trials should be conducted in a different order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Fronabarger
Concreters, Inc., to continue the trial date or, alternatively, to sever claims [Doc. #
216] is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the CERCLA claims, counterclaims and
crossclaims asserted by and between all parties in this action are severed from the
common law claims against defendant Fronabarger Concreters, Inc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the common law claims against defendant
Fronabarger Concreters, Inc., remain set for trial on August 18, 2014, in the
Southeastern Division.

___________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of August, 2014.

-3-