Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial in Washington

Background

“Bifurcation should be carefully and cautiously applied and be utilized only in a case and at a juncture where informed judgment impels the court to conclude that application of the rule will manifestly promote convenience and/or actually avoid prejudice." (See Brown v. Gen. Motors Corp. (1965) 67 Wn.2d 278, 282, 407 P.2d 461; Kelso v. Olympia Sch. Dist., No. 48942-2-II, at *22 (Wash. Ct. App. May 21, 2019).)

“Bifurcation may result in piecemeal litigation, judicial inefficiency, and delays in the ultimate resolution of case.” (See Kelso v. Olympia Sch. Dist., No. 48942-2-II, at *22 (Wash. Ct. App. May 21, 2019).)

“Such piecemeal litigation is discouraged, especially where the evidence bearing upon the respective issues is commingled and overlapping.” (See id.)

“Bifurcation is not a procedure to be liberally applied, but its application remains in the discretion of the trial court.” (See id; Myers v. Boeing Co. (1990) 115 Wn.2d 123, 140, 794 P.2d 1272.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Two rules address a trial court's ability to bifurcate claims or issues into separate trials.” (See Kelso v. Olympia Sch. Dist., No. 48942-2-II, at *22 (Wash. Ct. App. May 21, 2019).)

“CR 20(b) states that a "court . . . may order separate trials or make other orders to prevent delay or prejudice.” (See id.)

“Similarly, CR 42(b) states: the court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conductive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim . . . or of any separate issue or of any number of claims . . . or issues, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review a trial court's determination on a motion to bifurcate for an abuse of discretion.” (See Kelso v. Olympia Sch. Dist., No. 48942-2-II, at *21 (Wash. Ct. App. May 21, 2019).)

“A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.” (See id.)

“The exercise of the trial court's discretion regarding bifurcating a trial will not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion.” (See Jensen v. Beaird (1985) 40 Wn. App. 1, 2.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.” (See James S. Black Co. v. Woolworth Co. (1975) 14 Wn. App. 602, 606.)

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, 221-22.)