Utter v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00441
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 SUE FAHAMI Acting United States Attorney 2 District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 5634 3 R. THOMAS COLONNA 4 Assistant United States Attorney 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6336 6 Richard.Colonna@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 Case No. 3:23-cv-00441-MMD-CLB 10 ALICIA UTTER, Order Granting Stipulation and Order 11 Plaintiff, to Bifurcate Trial 12 v. 13 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff, Alicia Utter, by and through her attorney of record, John B. Greene, Esq. 18 of the law firm Golightly & Vannah, PLLC, and Defendant, United States of America, by 19 and through Assistant United States Attorney R. Thomas Colonna, hereby stipulate to 20 bifurcate the trial in this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b), into two phases — liability 21 and damages. This Stipulation is based upon the following: 22 1. Brief Factual Summary of Case and Underlying Incident: This case 23 involves a negligence action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 24 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., arising out of an August 9, 2021 motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff 25 Alicia Utter (“Plaintiff”) alleges Amor Cabral, an employee of the United States Postal 26 Service, operating a 1988 white Grumman Allied mail delivery vehicle “failed to use due 27 care, began backing the mail delivery vehicle without observing his surroundings, including 28 Plaintiff’s vehicle occupied by Plaintiff, and caused Defendant’s mail delivery vehicle to 1 collide with Plaintiff, which then caused Plaintiff’s vehicle to slide three feet across the 2 pavement” causing property damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle (the “Incident”) and injuries to 3 the Plaintiff (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 11 – 13, 15). Plaintiff seeks money damages for the Incident 4 (ECF No. 1 at Demand for Judgment). Defendant denies and contests: (1) the Incident 5 itself; (2) liability; and (3) all allegations associated to the Incident and liability (ECF No. 6 9). 7 2. Authority to Bifurcate: Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) permits bifurcation of trial “for 8 convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). 9 Courts accordingly may order a separate trial of one or more issues, claims, crossclaims, 10 counterclaims, or third-party claims. Id. For example, “[i]t is clear that Rule 42(b) gives 11 courts the authority to separate trials into liability and damage phases.” Estate of Diaz v. City 12 of Anaheim, 840 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting De Anda v. City of Long Beach, 7 F.3d 13 1418, 1421 (9th Cir. 1993)). The decision to bifurcate is within the court’s discretion. Hirst 14 v.Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1261 (9th Cir. 1982). 15 3. Justification to Bifurcate: A finding of liability against Plaintiff could 16 resolve the entire case without any need to address damages. Cook v. United Serv. Auto. 17 Ass’n., 169 F.R.D. 359, 361 (D. Nev. 1996) (explaining that bifurcation is particularly 18 appropriate “when resolution of a single claim or issue could be dispositive of the entire 19 case” (citing 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d, § 2388, p. 476 20 (1994))). Bifurcation could therefore save the parties significant funds in calling experts on 21 damages and medical treatment, while creating the potential for resolution through a 22 shorter trial process. As most of the evidence on damages do not appear essential to 23 establishing what happened before and during the Incident, it is unlikely that there will be 24 duplicative presentation of evidence if bifurcation occurred. Further, evidence on the extent 25 of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries is not essential to proving liability with her negligence claim. 26 Finally, bifurcation avoids potentially unnecessary costs while effectively and efficiently 27 resolving factual and legal issues. 1 4. Terms of Bifurcation: 2 a. Trial is currently set on Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. ECF No. 3 25. 4 b. The parties request that trial be bifurcated into two phases — liability 5 and damages. 6 c. The parties anticipate that liability determination will be completed in 7 one day. 8 Respectfully submitted this 12th day of February 2025. 9 10 GOLIGHTLY & VANNAH, PLLC SUE FAHAMI 11 Acting United States Attorney 12 /s/ John B. Greene /s/ R. Thomas Colonna 13 JOHN B. GREENE, ESQ. R. THOMAS COLONNA Nevada Bar No. 4279 Assistant United States Attorney 14 5555 Kietzke Lane, Suite 150 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite1100 Reno, Nevada 89511 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for United States 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 __________________________________________ 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 22 DATED: February 13, 2025 23 24 25 26 27