Adame v. Surprise, City of

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maria Adame, et al., No. CV-17-03200-PHX-GMS

Plaintiffs, ORDER v.

City of Surprise, et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Surprise’s Motion to Bifurcate, (Doc. 142), and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 144). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Objection and Request to Strike Defendant’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 153.) For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate is denied, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is stricken, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is granted.

I. Motion to Bifurcate

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to order separate trials of separate issues for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). District courts have broad discretion as to whether bifurcation is appropriate. Zivokic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Exxon Co. v. Sofec, Ins., 54 F.3d 570, 575 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The piecemeal trial of separate issues in a single lawsuit . . . is not to be the usual course, however, and will be ordered only where the party seeking separate trials meets his or her burden of proving that bifurcation is necessary.” Lassley v. Secura Supreme Inc., No. 14-cv-1766, 2015 WL 5634307, at *2 (D. || Ariz. Sept. 15, 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Defendant does not meet its burden of proving that bifurcation of the liability and damages phases of the trial is necessary. Accordingly, the Motion to Bifurcate is denied. II. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Ryan vy. Napier was published on August 23, 2018. 245 Ariz. 54, 425 P.3d 230 (2018). The Mandatory Initial Discovery Program Responses and Fact Discovery deadline was November 23, 2018, and the parties were required to file dispositive motions by 10}, January 11, 2019. (Doc. 42.) Defendant could have sought relief pursuant to Ryan v. Napier prior to the first dispositive motion deadline and failed to do so. As Defendant filed the instant dispositive motion, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, after the dispositive motion deadline without leave from the Court, the Motion is stricken.

Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the Trial || into Separate Issues of Liability and Damages (Doc. 142) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 144) is STRICKEN.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objection and Request to Strike Defendants’ Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 153) is GRANTED. Dated this 18th day of March, 2021. □ Masiay Saves

G. Murray now Chief United States District Judge

_2-