Pittman v. American Airlines Group, Inc.

Filing 37

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 32 Motion to Bifurcate (tjc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANNA MARIE PITTMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Number: 14-CV-728-CVE-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate and Expedite Discovery, [Dkt. 32], is before the
court for decision. Plaintiff has filed a response, [Dkt. 35], and the Defendant has filed a
reply, [Dkt. 36].
Defendant previously filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon a settlement agreement
between the parties. The court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss concluding that
although the settlement agreement covered all of Plaintiff’s claims, the record was
insufficient to determine if Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily entered into the settlement
agreement.1 Defendant now seeks to bifurcate the case by first conducting discovery and
filing a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiff knowingly and
voluntarily entered into the settlement agreement. Discovery and consideration of the
merits of Plaintiff’s claims would only proceed if Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
were denied.

1

The court did not address Plaintiff’s argument that the settlement agreement was unenforceable
because it was retaliatory.

Defendant argues that whether the Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily entered into
the settlement agreement is clearly separable from the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and it
would be more efficient and cost effective to resolve that potentially dispositive issue first.
Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s assessment and contends the issues are not
clearly separable because a determination of the merits of Plaintiff’s claims is necessary
to decide if Plaintiff received any consideration for entering into the settlement agreement.
Plaintiff also contends that because of the straight forward nature of Plaintiff’s claims and
the potential for discovery disputes on the scope of discovery if the case is bifurcated it
would not be efficient or cost effective to bifurcate the case.
Plaintiff’s argument that the issues are not clearly separable is based on Plaintiff’s
contention that she was legally entitled to continue working for Defendant because her
termination violated federal and state law as well as the collective bargaining agreement.
Thus, Plaintiff argues, Defendant gave her nothing she was not entitled to when it put her
back to work.
The court is not persuaded that the issues are clearly separable or that bifurcation
would be efficient or cost effective. The consideration received by Plaintiff is one of the
factors the court considers in deciding if Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily entered into the
settlement agreement. Moreover, this is not a factually or legally complex case. Therefore,
discovery should not be unusually burdensome or costly. Allowing both parties to develop
their cases in discovery will permit the parties to present a fully developed record to the
court on the anticipated dispositive motions.

2

Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate and Expedite Discovery, [Dkt. 32], is hereby
DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2015.

3