Local 2507, Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics & Fire Inspectors v. City of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D OCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED LOCAL 2507, UNIFORMED EMTs, PARAMEDICS & DOC #: ______ ___________ FIRE INSPECTORS, Individually and on behalf of its DATE FILED: __6/25/2025_ current and former members; LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS UNION, Individually and on behalf of its current and former members; NYC EMS SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Individually and on behalf of its current and former members; TONYA BOYD, CHRISTELL CADET, MARK CARRASQUILLO, LIZETTE CLARO, BEVERLY COBB, ALI COUTARD, SENCIA DATILUS, LAITRICE EDWARDS, ALICIA ELKADI, RONALD FLOYD, KAHLIA GRAHAM, RICHARD GUZMAN, MAGGIE HOPE, JASMIN HOWARD, ANGELA JONES, RAVIVARMAN KAILAYANATHAN, MELANIE MORENO- KETCHUM, JENELLE PIERRE, SIMONE QUASHIE, JASON SAFFON, ALLISON SHAUGHNESSY, LAURA TORRES, ANDRE VALDEZ, LANCE WINFIELD, RONALD WOLFE, MARYLOU AURRICHIO on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated individuals,

Plaintiffs,

-against- 22 Civ. 10336 (AT)

CITY OF NEW YORK on behalf of the Fire Department ORDER of the City of New York,

Defendant. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiffs, current and former members of the Emergency Medical Services Bureau of the Fire Department of the City of New York and their representative unions, move to bifurcate trial into liability and remedies phases. Mot., ECF No. 217; see also Reply, ECF No. 222. Defendant, the City of New York (the “City”), opposes the motion, arguing that it is premature and, alternatively, should be denied on the merits. Opp., ECF No. 220. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later date.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) authorizes district courts to hold separate trials on “one or more separate issues [or] claims” for “convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize” proceedings. The Rule provides neither a deadline by which a court must order bifurcation, nor a deadline for a party to move for such an order. Application of the Rule “rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Dallas v. Goldberg, 143 F. Supp. 2d 312, 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); accord Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1289 (2d Cir. 1990). “[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016). The City contends that Plaintiffs’ motion is premature. According to the City, substantial fact discovery remains, including depositions of named parties, class members, and further document production. Opp. at 2-3. When fact discovery does close, the parties will need to engage in expert discovery. /d. Following expert discovery, “the City anticipates filing a motion to decertify part or all of the class and/or subclasses and a motion for summary judgment.” □□□ Plaintiff minimizes the extent of discovery that remains, but it generally does not dispute the City’s representations. See Reply. The Court agrees that the motion is premature. Plaintiffs insist that the Court can order the bifurcation of trial while merits discovery is ongoing, but they do not explain why the Court should do so. Other than a perfunctory claim that “[t]he parties should be thinking of their trial strategy as they complete final merits discovery,” Plaintiffs do not provide information sufficient to justify adjudicating bifurcation at this time. Reply at 2. Indeed, even if the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and ordered that trial be bifurcated, such an order may need to be revisited following the parties’ anticipated motions practice. It would hardly seem “efficient [or] expedient” to address trial logistics without complete information as to what trial will entail. Dietz, 579 US. at 47. Plaintiffs’ motion to bifurcate trial is, therefore, DENIED without prejudice to renewal following an adjudication of summary judgment motions or the expiration of the deadline to file such motions. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 217. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 25, 2025 New York, New York j- ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge