McKiver et al v. Murphy-Brown, LLC

Filing 155

ORDER denying #56 Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by Senior Judge W. Earl Britt on 3/16/2018. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:14-CV-180-BR
JOYCE MCKIVER, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MURPHY-BROWN LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to bifurcate. (DE # 56.) Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition, (DE # 62), to which defendant filed a reply, (DE # 102).
Defendant requests that the court order the bifurcation of the issues of liability for and the
amount of compensatory damages from the issues of liability for and the amount of punitive
damages. Relying on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-30, defendant claims it has a right to a trial so
bifurcated. Alternatively, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b), defendant contends bifurcation is
appropriate to avoid inefficiency and unfair prejudice to it. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing
that Rule 42(b) controls the court’s analysis and that there is no evidence relating solely to
punitive damages.
North Carolina General Statute section 1D-30 provides in relevant part, “Upon the
motion of a defendant, the issues of liability for compensatory damages and the amount of
compensatory damages, if any, shall be tried separately from the issues of liability for punitive
damages and the amount of punitive damages, if any.” On a defendant’s motion pursuant to this
statute, the court must bifurcate the compensatory damages phase of the trial from the punitive
damages phase of the trial under the procedures set forth therein. Land v. Land, 687 S.E.2d 511,

517 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). However, “[b]ifurcation is primarily procedural in nature; therefore,
federal procedural law applies.” Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. v. Saga Freight Logistics, LLC,
No. 3:13-CV-529-RJC-DCK, 2015 WL 13610653, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 9, 2015) (citing Rosales
v. Honda Motor Co., 726 F.2d 259, 260 (5th Cir. 1984)). Accordingly, the court is not required
to grant defendant’s motion in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-30 and will consider
whether bifurcation is warranted under Rule 42(b). See id.
The federal rule permits bifurcation “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite
and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
The Court is permitted considerable discretion in exercising its powers under the
rule.
Notwithstanding the broad discretion conferred by Rule 42(b), the
bifurcation of issues and the separate trial of them is not the usual course of
events. Nothing else appearing, a single trial will be more expedient and efficient.
The party requesting separate trials bears the burden of convincing the court that
such an exercise of its discretion will (1) promote greater convenience to the
parties, witnesses, jurors, and the court, (2) be conducive to expedition and
economy, and (3) not result in undue prejudice to any party.
F & G Scrolling Mouse, L.L.C. v. IBM Corp., 190 F.R.D. 385, 387 (M.D.N.C. 1999) (citations
omitted).
Having fully considered the parties’ arguments, the court finds that defendant has not met
its burden. Specifically, the court concludes that there is overlap in the evidence regarding
compensatory and punitive damages, and therefore, bifurcation would not promote convenience
or be conducive to expedition and economy. Defendant’s motion to bifurcate is DENIED.
This 16 March 2018.

__________________________________

W. Earl Britt
Senior U.S. District Judge
2