Espinola v. Ingersoll Rand, Inc. et al

Filing 233

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 213 ORDERED that Defendant Ingersoll Rand Company'sMotion to Bifurcate [ECF No. 213] is DENIED.. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 7/10/12. (CEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ALBERTO ESPINOLA,
Plaintiff,
v.
INGERSOLL RAND CO., et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:09CV2090 HEA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Ingersoll Rand Company’s
(“Defendant”) Motion to Bifurcate [ECF No. 213]. Defendant requests to bifurcate
liability and his request for punitive damages. Plaintiff Alberto Espinola
(“Plaintiff”) opposes Defendant’s motion [ECF No. 227]. Defendant contends that
the Court should bifurcate the trial on liability from damages because trying the
issues of liability and damages together may result in confusion of the issues and
could further confuse the jury.
Pursuant to 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[f]or
convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may
order a separate trial of one or more separate issues [.]” Embracing the spirit of
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(b), the Court is dubious that the facts presented in this case
would be so confusing that the jury would misconceive the issues at hand. To

bifurcate would cause considerable inconvenience, and it would not expedite or
economize the flow of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(b).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ingersoll Rand Company’s
Motion to Bifurcate [ECF No. 213] is DENIED.
Dated this 10th day of July, 2012.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2