Carr v. County of San Diego

S.D. California

Carr v. County of San Diego

DecidedApril 8, 2022

Docket3:19-cv-01139

StatusUnknown

This text of Carr v. County of San Diego (Carr v. County of San Diego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carr v. County of San Diego, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM CARR, Case No.: 19-CV-1139 JLS (MDD)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR BIFURCATION OF TRIAL 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; JEFFREY

CHU; JOSEPH MCMANUS; 15 (ECF No. 91) CHRISTOPHER CADIGAN; JASON 16 FERGUSON; ALEXANDER SOLIMAN; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion for Bifurcation of Trial (“Joint 21 Mot.,” ECF No. 91). The Parties request that the Court bifurcate the trial into two phases. 22 Id. at 2. The first phase would determine whether Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights, 23 Plaintiff’s entitlement to and amount of compensatory damages, and whether Defendants’ 24 conduct was such that punitive damages are warranted. Id. The second phase would 25 concern the amount of punitive damages and Defendants’ ability to pay. Id. 26 “For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may 27 order a separate trial of one or more separate issues[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). The rule 28 “confers broad discretion upon the district court to bifurcate a trial[.]” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. 1 || Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). Factors relevant to bifurcation include 2 ||“[1] avoiding prejudice, [2] separability of the issues, [3] convenience, [4] judicial 3 |}economy, and [5] reducing risk of confusion.” Bates v. United Parcel Serv., 204 F.R.D. 4 || 440, 448 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted). “Only one of Rule 42(b)’s conditions has to 5 met for the court to order a separate trial.” United States v. Shell Oil Co., No. CV 91- 6 ||0589-RJK, 1992 WL 144296, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 1992) (citing Jn re Paris Air Crash 7 March 3, 1974, 69 F.R.D. 310 (C.D. Cal. 1975)). 8 The Parties collectively contend, and the Court agrees, that bifurcation is appropriate 9 ||here. Defendants’ ability to pay is a separable issue, and presenting such evidence prior to 10 ||a determination of liability could be confusing and prejudicial. Joint Mot. at 3. Further, if 11 jury decides in the first phase that Defendants are not liable or that the Defendants’ 12 ||conduct was not such that punitive damages are warranted, bifurcation would promote 13 convenience and economy by rendering moot the second phase of the trial. /d. at 3-4. 14 Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion (ECF No. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: April 8, 2022 (een 18 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM CARR, Case No.: 19-CV-1139 JLS (MDD)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR BIFURCATION OF TRIAL 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; JEFFREY

CHU; JOSEPH MCMANUS; 15 (ECF No. 91) CHRISTOPHER CADIGAN; JASON 16 FERGUSON; ALEXANDER SOLIMAN; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion for Bifurcation of Trial (“Joint 21 Mot.,” ECF No. 91). The Parties request that the Court bifurcate the trial into two phases. 22 Id. at 2. The first phase would determine whether Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights, 23 Plaintiff’s entitlement to and amount of compensatory damages, and whether Defendants’ 24 conduct was such that punitive damages are warranted. Id. The second phase would 25 concern the amount of punitive damages and Defendants’ ability to pay. Id. 26 “For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may 27 order a separate trial of one or more separate issues[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). The rule 28 “confers broad discretion upon the district court to bifurcate a trial[.]” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. 1 || Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). Factors relevant to bifurcation include 2 ||“[1] avoiding prejudice, [2] separability of the issues, [3] convenience, [4] judicial 3 |}economy, and [5] reducing risk of confusion.” Bates v. United Parcel Serv., 204 F.R.D. 4 || 440, 448 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted). “Only one of Rule 42(b)’s conditions has to 5 met for the court to order a separate trial.” United States v. Shell Oil Co., No. CV 91- 6 ||0589-RJK, 1992 WL 144296, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 1992) (citing Jn re Paris Air Crash 7 March 3, 1974, 69 F.R.D. 310 (C.D. Cal. 1975)). 8 The Parties collectively contend, and the Court agrees, that bifurcation is appropriate 9 ||here. Defendants’ ability to pay is a separable issue, and presenting such evidence prior to 10 ||a determination of liability could be confusing and prejudicial. Joint Mot. at 3. Further, if 11 jury decides in the first phase that Defendants are not liable or that the Defendants’ 12 ||conduct was not such that punitive damages are warranted, bifurcation would promote 13 convenience and economy by rendering moot the second phase of the trial. /d. at 3-4. 14 Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion (ECF No. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: April 8, 2022 (een 18 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carr v. County of San Diego, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-county-of-san-diego-casd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack