Britt v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

MEGAN BRITT, BRETT HAWKINS, STEVE HARBOUR, JASON NORMAN, BRIAN MILEY, CLINT BUCKLEY, JASON BAKER, and CHRIS CARNEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:18-cv-38-GHD-DAS MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANTS ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL INTO PHASES The Court, as described herein, hereby sua sponte bifurcates the trial of these proceedings into two phases — an initial phase limited to whether or not the Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendants or whether they were independent contractors, and if necessary a second phase regarding the Defendants’ defenses regarding overtime (the outside sales, highly compensated, retail, administrative, and executive defenses) and the Plaintiffs’ damages, if any. Bifurcation of a trial is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). Briggs v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co,, 673 F. App’x 389, 390 (Sth Cir. 2016), Rule 42(b) provides as follows: “For 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.” Feb. R, Crv, P. 42(b). “A motion to bifurcate is a matter within the sole discretion of the trial court .... Briggs, 673 F. App’x at 390 (quoting First Tex. Say. Ass’n y. Reliance Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 1171, 1174 n.2 (Sth Cir. 1992)); see also Malin Int’l Ship Repair & Drydock , Inc. v, Veolia Es Special Services, Inc., 369 Fed. Appx. 553 (Sth Cir. 2010); Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v.

Mills, 319 F.2d 63 (Oth Cir. 1963); Murillo ef al v. Cory County Tradesman, LLC, No, 15-3641, 2017 WL 2735559 (E.D. La. 2017), When ordering a separate trial of issues pursuant to Rule 42(b), a court must ensure that bifurcation would not “result in unnecessary delay, additional expense, or some other form of prejudice.” Laitram Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 791 F. Supp. 113, 115 (E.D. La, 1992), Here, the Court finds that bifurcation of the trial in this matter is warranted. Bifurcating the trial into an initial liability phase, limited to the threshold question of whether the Plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors, and a second defenses/damages phase, if necessary, will expedite and economize the trial by allowing the jury to first consider the parties’ evidence regarding whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to employee status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and, if the jury determines that any or all of the Plaintiffs were employees of any or all of the Defendants, only then consider the Defendants’ FLSA defenses and individual evidence of damages for each Plaintiffas to those Defendants found liable. Malin Int’l Ship Repair & Drydock, 369 Fed, Appx. at 555 (affirming a district court’s decision to bifurcate when the issues of liability and damages were “clearly separable” and judicial economy would be served by bifurcation), Tn the case sub judice, the Court finds that separating the issues of initial liability and defenses/damages will encourage judicial efficiency, and those issues are “so distinct □□□ separable” that a bifurcated trial “may be had without injustice” or prejudice to any party. State of Ala. v. Blue Bird Body Co., 573 F.2d 309, 318 (Sth Cir, 1978) (citing Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406, 415 (Sth Cir. 1964)), Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), the Court finds that bifurcating the jury trial in this matter is warranted. The jury trial will be bifurcated into two phases. The first phase will determine the initial liability portion of Plaintiffs’ collective action

FLSA claims — i.e., whether the Plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors of the Defendants. Ifthe jury returns a verdict that any or all of the Plaintiffs were employees of one or more of the Defendants, then the second phase of the trial will be immediately tried before the same jury to consider the Defendants’ FLSA defenses and the amount of damages, if any, the Plaintiffs are entitled to as to those Defendants. In sum, based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that, in the interests of convenience and judicial economy, bifurcating the trial in this matter as described above is warranted pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. □□ □□ THEREFORE ORDERED that the jury trial of this matter will be bifurcated into two phases. The first phase will determine the initial liability portion of Plaintiffs’ collective action FLSA claims -- whether the Plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors of the Defendants. Ifthe jury returns a verdict that any or any or all of the Plaintiffs were employees of one or more of the Defendants, then the second phase of the trial will be immediately tried before the same jury to consider the Defendants’ FLSA defenses and the amount of damages, if any, the Plaintiffs are entitled to as to those Defpodants. SO ORDERED, this the L day of March, 2022. MOM Sarin SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE