Adame v. Surprise, City of ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Maria Adame, et al., No. CV-17-03200-PHX-GMS 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 City of Surprise, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Surprise’s Motion to Bifurcate, (Doc. 17 142), and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 144). Also before the Court is 18 Plaintiffs’ Objection and Request to Strike Defendant’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment 19 on the Pleadings. (Doc. 153.) For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate 20 is denied, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is stricken, and Plaintiffs’ 21 Motion to Strike is granted. 22 I. Motion to Bifurcate 23 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to order separate trials of 24 separate issues for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize. Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 42(b). District courts have broad discretion as to whether bifurcation is appropriate. 26 Zivokic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Exxon Co. v. 27 Sofec, Ins., 54 F.3d 570, 575 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The piecemeal trial of separate issues in a 28 single lawsuit . . . is not to be the usual course, however, and will be ordered only where 1 || the party seeking separate trials meets his or her burden of proving that bifurcation is 2|| 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). 4 Defendant does not meet its burden of proving that bifurcation of the liability and 5 || damages phases of the trial is necessary. Accordingly, the Motion to Bifurcate is denied. 6 II. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 7 Ryan vy. Napier was published on August 23, 2018. 245 Ariz. 54, 425 P.3d 230 8 || (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. 11 || Napier prior to the first dispositive motion deadline and failed to do so. As Defendant filed 12 || the instant dispositive motion, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, after the dispositive 13 || motion deadline without leave from the Court, the Motion is stricken. 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the Trial || into Separate Issues of Liability and Damages (Doc. 142) is DENIED. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment 18 || on the Pleadings (Doc. 144) is STRICKEN. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objection and Request to Strike 20 || Defendants’ Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 153) is GRANTED. 21 Dated this 18th day of March, 2021. 22 □ 23 Masiay Saves G. Murray now 24 Chief United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 _2-