A motion to bifurcate is a request made by a party in a legal case to divide a trial into separate phases, typically to try liability and damages separately. Bifurcation may also be sought to avoid prejudice, simplify the trial, or expedite resolution. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the motion based on various factors, including the case's complexity, potential prejudice, and the efficiency of the proposed bifurcation.
Under Ark. R. Civ. P. 42(b), “[a] circuit court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim or issue.” (Cureton v. Stout (2020) 609 S.W.3d 435 …)
“Under Rule 42(b), Ariz.R.Civ.P., a court may order separate trials for claims within a case in order to further the convenience of the parties or to avoid prejudice, and must always preserve inviolate the right to trial by jury.” (See Marvin Johnson, P.C. v. Myers (1995) 184 Ariz. 98…)
“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1048(b); see also…)
“C.R.C.P. 42(b). C.R.C.P. 42 grants the trial court discretion as to whether there should be separate trials or a joint trial.” (See Prudential v. Dist. Ct. (1980) 617 P.2d 556…)
Bifurcation has been recognized as a tool available to the court by Statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-205, Rule, P.B. § 15-1 and case law. (See Saczynski v. Saczynski (2008) 109 Conn….)
“Under Superior Court Civil Rule 42(b), the Court has the discretion to bifurcate a matter to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy.” (See Wallace v. Keystone Ins. Group, C.A. No. 04C-03-311, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 22, 2007).)
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270(b) governs the bifurcation of trials and permits “[t]he court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice [to] order a separate trial of any claim ... or of any separate issue or of any number of claims ... or issues.”
“The decision to allow bifurcation also falls within the discretion of the trial judge. OCGA § 9-11-42 (b). Accordingly, the decision here will not be reversed absent a ‘clear and manifest abuse of discretion.’” (Bolden v. Ruppenthal (2007) 286 Ga. App. 800…)
“Bifurcation is justified where the circumstances listed in Cohn are present or where the circumstances are of the same caliber as those enumerated in Cohn.” (In re Marriage of Wade (2011) 408 Ill. App. 3d 775…)
“TR. 42(B) gives the trial court discretion as to granting or denying separate trials.” (See Burkett v. Crulo Trucking Co. (1976) 171 Ind. App. 166 …)
Massachusetts R.Civ.P. 20(b), 365 Mass. 766 (1974), provides as follows: “The court may make such orders as will prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to expense by the inclusion of a party against whom he asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against him, and may order separate trials or make other orders to prevent delay or prejudice.” (See Roddy McNulty Ins. Agency v. Proctor…)
It is well settled that “Minn. R. Civ. P. 42.02 provides that the court may bifurcate a trial when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy.” (See Viking Produce, Inc. v. Northstar Produce, LLC, A11-635, at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2012).)
“Rule 81.06 contemplates by its language that it will apply where separate trial of a claim has been ordered.” (Shell v. Shell (1980) 605 S.W.2d 185…)
Under Rule 42(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court may in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice and shall for considerations of venue upon timely motion order a separate trial of any claim, crossclaim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues.” (See In re Will of Hester (1987) 320 N.C. 738…)
“A trial court's ruling on bifurcation of trials under N.D.R.Civ.P. 42(b) will not be overturned on appeal unless the complaining party demonstrates the court abused its discretion.” (See Piatz v. Austin Mut. Ins. Co. (2002) 646 N.W.2d 681…)
“In some circumstances, the relevant proofs on liability and damages are intermingled such that bifurcation may become prejudicial to the party defending against the lawsuit.” (See Beasley v. Passaic Cty. (2005) 377 N.J. Super. 585…)
“Bifurcation is designed to facilitate the expeditious and economical resolution of cases that involve disparate procedural or substantive issues.” (State v. Esparza (2003) 133 N.M. 772…)
Under NRCP Rule 42(b), “Nevada [trial] courts have discretion to bifurcate equitable and legal issues raised in a single action, conduct a bench trial on the equitable issues, and dispose of the remaining legal and equitable issues in the action.” (Park W. Cos. v. Amazon Constr. Corp. (2020) 473 P.3d 459 citing Awada v. Shuffle Master Inc. (2007) 123 Nev. 613…)
Bifurcation is not appropriate when the issue to be bifurcated is inextricably interwoven with other issues in the case. (Baseball Office of the Comm’r v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 295 A.D.2d 73, 79 [1st Dept. 2002].) A trial on the issues of both liability and damages should be held only where the nature of the injuries has…
Further, “R.C. 2315.21(B) confers upon a defendant the right to bifurcation of evidence offered solely to prove actual malice and entitlement to punitive damages.” (Berry v. Mullet (2019) 2019 Ohio 2549, 8.)
“Separate trials of claims or issues may be ordered if fairness or convenience justifies separate treatment.” (See A-Plus Janitorial Carpet Cleaning v. Tewca (1997) 936 P.2d 916…)
“Under ORCP 53B, the trial judge may order a separate trial of any claim or of any separate issue or issues only (1) in furtherance of convenience, (2) to avoid prejudice, or (3) if conducive to expedition and economy.” (See Bremner v. Charles (1992) 312 Or. 274…)
“The decision whether to bifurcate is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to evaluate the necessity for such measures.” (Castellani v. Scranton Times, L.P. (2017) 161 A.3d 285…)
"The purpose of [Rule 42(b)] is to preserve judicial economy, but this Court approves of bifurcation when to do otherwise may invite confusion or unfair prejudice.” (See Thorndikev. Daimlerchrysler Corp. (2004) 220 F.R.D. 6, 7-8.)
When the Supreme Court first announced the scheme for bifurcated trials in cases involving punitive damages, it said: “[I]f presented with a timely motion, [the trial court] should bifurcate the determination of the amount of punitive damages from the remaining issues.... Under this approach, the jury first hears evidence relevant to liability for actual damages, the amount of actual damages, and liability for punitive damages…”
“Rule 42(b) acts as a counterbalance to relatively unlimited joinder rules at the pleading stage by giving trial courts virtually unlimited freedom to try the issues in whatever way trial convenience requires." (See Gardner v. Hokenson, SUPREME COURT No. 2019-410, at *4 (Vt. Feb. 5, 2021).)
However, it is also well settled that “the procedure authorized by Rule 42(b) should be distinguished from severance under Rule 21. Separate trials will usually result in one judgment, but severed claims become entirely independent actions to be tried, and judgment entered thereon, independently. Unfortunately this distinction, clear enough in theory, is often obscured in practice since at times the courts talk of ‘separate trial’ and ‘severance’ interchangeably.” (See Zamora v. Mobil Oil (1985) 104 Wn. 2d 211…)
“The decisions whether to bifurcate claims into separate trials and whether to stay discovery on bifurcated claims are each committed to the circuit court's discretion.” (See TJW Props., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., (2021) WI App. 7.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
