Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. AVELA., Inc. et al

Filing 220

ORDER denying 205 Motion to Bifurcate Trial.; denying 217 Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 10/13/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ***
FIFTY-SIX HOPE ROAD MUSIC, LTD., a Bahamian corporation; and ZION ) )

ROOTSWEAR, LLC, a Florida Limited ) Liability company, )
Plaintiffs, v.

2:08-CV-00105-PMP-PAL

A.V.E.L.A., INC., a Nevada corporation, ) SCI-FI PRODUCTIONS, INC., dba X ) One X Movie Archive, Inc., a Nevada ) corporation, JEM SPORTSWEAR, a ) California corporation, CENTRAL ) MILLS, INC. (Freeze), a New York ) corporation, and LEO VALENCIA, ) an individual, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate Trial (Doc. #205), filed on August 13, 2010. By this motion Defendants request that the first phase of trial address Defendants liability with respect to Plaintiffs' claim for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and liability on the Nevada Right of Publicity claim. The second phase of trial would address, if necessary, damages relating to the trademark claim. ///

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Plaintiffs' oppose Defendants' motion to bifurcate trial and argue that Defendants have failed to demonstrate good grounds to warrant a bifurcated trail under Rule 42 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that bifurcation of the trial would prejudice Plaintiffs as it would deprive them of their legitimate right to place before the jury the circumstances of the entire cause of action which they have brought. Having read and considered Defendants fully briefed Motion to Bifurcate Trial, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish that a bifurcated trial is warranted in this case, or that bifurcation would serve the interests of convenience or judicial economy. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate Trial (Doc. #205) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition (Doc. #217) is DENIED. DATED: October 13, 2010.

PHILIP M. PRO United States District Judge

2