Howard v. United States of America ex rel United States Postal Service

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00643
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 SUInGitAedL SCtaHteAs TATttAoHrn e y 2 District of Nevada Nevada Bar Number 8264 3 VIRGINIA T. TOMOVA 4 Assistant United States Attorney Nevada Bar No. 12504 5 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 6 (702) 388-6336 virginia.tomova@usdoj.gov 7 Attorneys for the United States

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 Joel Kane Howard, individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-00643-APG-EJY 10 Plaintiff, Stipulation and Order to Bifurcate Trial 11 v. 12 United States of America, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Joel Kane Howard and Defendant United States of America, by and 16 through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to bifurcate the trial in this case, pursuant 17 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), into two phases – liability and damages. The trial 18 is currently set for September 22, 2025, at 9:00 am. ECF No. 71. This stipulation is based 19 upon the following: 20 1. Brief Factual Summary of Case and Underlying Incident: This case 21 involves a negligence action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 22 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., arising out of an April 23, 2018, incident between a bicycle 23 operated by plaintiff and a United States Postal Service vehicle. The incident occurred on 24 Westcliff Drive in Las Vegas, to the west of the Bank of America building. The parties are 25 disputing liability for this incident. Because liability is disputed, the parties stipulate in the 26 interest of judicial economy, parties’ convenience, and undue prejudice to bifurcate this 27 trial into two phases – a liability phase and a damages phase. 28 1 2. Authority to Bifurcate: Bifurcation is particularly appropriate when 2 resolution of a single claim or issue could be dispositive of the entire case. Alele v. Geico Gen. 3 Ins. Co., 420 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 1130 (D. Nev. 2019). Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) permits 4 bifurcation of trial “for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Courts accordingly may order a separate trial of one or more issues, 6 claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims. Id. For example, “[i]t is clear that 7 Rule 42(b) gives courts the authority to separate trials into liability and damage phases.” 8 Est. of Diaz v. City of Anaheim, 840 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting De Anda v. City of 9 Long Beach, 7 F.3d 1418, 1421 (9th Cir. 1993)). The decision to bifurcate is within the 10 court’s discretion. Alele, at 1130; see also Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1261 (9th Cir. 11 1982). 12 3. Justification to Bifurcate: A finding of liability against plaintiff could 13 resolve the entire case without any need to address damages. Cook v. United Serv. Auto. 14 Ass’n., 169 F.R.D. 359, 361 (D. Nev. 1996) (explaining that bifurcation is particularly 15 appropriate “when resolution of a single claim or issue could be dispositive of the entire 16 case” (citing 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d, § 2388, p. 476 17 (1994))). Bifurcation could therefore save the parties significant funds in calling experts on 18 damages and medical treatment, while creating the potential for resolution through a 19 shorter trial process. As most of the evidence on damages do not appear essential to 20 establishing what happened before and during the incident, it is unlikely that there will be 21 duplicative presentation of evidence if bifurcation occurred. Further, evidence on the extent 22 of plaintiff’s claimed injuries is not essential to proving liability with his negligence claim. 23 Finally, bifurcation avoids potentially unnecessary costs while effectively and efficiently 24 resolving factual and legal issues. 25 4. Terms of Bifurcation: 26 a. The trial is currently set for September 22, 2025, at 09:00 am. ECF No. 27 71. 1 b. The parties request that trial be bifurcated into two phases — liability and 2 damages. 3 c. The parties anticipate that liability determination will be completed in 4 two days. 5 Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of June 2025. 6 SIGAL CHATTAH 7 || United States Attorney DIMOPOULOS INJURY LAW 8 /s/ Virginia T. Tomova /s/ Paul A. Shpirt g || VIRGINIA T. TOMOVA PAUL A. SHPIRT Assistant United States Attorney Nevada Bar No. 10441 10 ||Nevada Bar No. 12504 6671 South Las Vegas Blvd Suite 275 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 1] ILas Vegas, Nevada 89101 Plainti as Vegas, INevada Attorney for Plaintiff 2 Attorneys for the United States 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED 17 18 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 DATED: June 24, 2025 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28