Rice v. City of Roy ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DAVID RICE and ELIZABETH RICE, CASE NO. 20-5223 RJB 11 individually and as a marital community; and SETH DONAHUE, individually, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ 12 MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. CLARIFICATION 14 CITY OF ROY, a Washington municipality; CHRIS JOHNSON, 15 individually; and DARWIN ARMITAGE, individually, 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate (Dkt. 105) and 19 Plaintiffs’ motion for clarification (Dkt. 106). The Court has considered the pleadings filed 20 regarding the motions and the file herein. 21 This case arises from City of Roy Police Officer Chris Johnson’s shooting of Plaintiffs David 22 Rice and Seth Donahue just south of the Roy, Washington city limits on February 9, 2019. Dkt. 23 1. Plaintiffs Rice and Donahue make federal claims for violation of their rights under the 24 1 “Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment . . . to be free from unreasonable seizures, 2 arrest without probable cause, and the excessive use of force.” Dkt. 1. They make state law 3 claims for negligence, false arrest, battery, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Elizabeth Rice 4 makes claims for violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights and loss of consortium. Id. The 5 Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. 6 On July 7, 2021, the Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted, in part, 7 and denied, in part. Dkt. 104. The facts and procedural history are in that July 7, 2021 Order 8 (Dkt. 104) and are adopted here. While the July 7, 2021 Order addressed several claims, as is 9 relevant to the pending motions, the July 7, 2021 Order dismissed the Plaintiffs’ Fourth 10 Amendment claims, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social 11 Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978), against the City of Roy based on its alleged improper 12 hiring and retention of Officer Johnson and its alleged failure to train and supervise Officer 13 Johnson. Dkt. 104. The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ Fourth 14 Amendment claim against the City of Roy for ratification of Officer Johnson’s actions was 15 denied and the claim was not dismissed. Id. The Defendants did not move for summary 16 judgment on the Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against the City of Roy. 17 In the pending Motion to Bifurcate, the Defendants move to bifurcate Plaintiffs’ Monell 18 claim against the City of Roy from the rest of the trial. Dkts. 105 and 109. The Plaintiffs oppose 19 bifurcation. Dkt. 106. 20 The Plaintiffs move for clarification of the July 7, 2021 Order, Plaintiffs “seek 21 clarification from the Court as to whether evidence related to Johnson’s hiring, training, 22 supervision, and discipline can be offered to establish the City of Roy’s liability for negligence, 23 independent of respondeat superior liability.” Dkt. 106. The Defendants oppose use of that 24 1 evidence arguing that the Court has already ruled that the Plaintiffs have failed to point to 2 evidence that supported claims related to Johnson’s hiring, training, supervision, and discipline. 3 Dkt. 109. 4 DISCUSSION 5 A. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) provides, in part: 7 Separate Trials. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one 8 or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must 9 preserve any federal right to a jury trial. 10 A court's decision on bifurcation is committed to its discretion. Danjaq LLC v. Sony 11 Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 962 (9th Cir. 2001). Separate trials are the exception, not the rule, and the 12 Court will not bifurcate without good reason. “In deciding a motion for bifurcation pursuant to 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), the Court considers factors such as convenience, 14 prejudice, judicial economy and whether the issues are clearly separable.” McCoy v. Liberty Mut. 15 Fire Ins. Co., C09-5464BHS, 2009 WL 5215760, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2009)(citing 16 SCHWARZER, TASHIMA & WAGSTAFFE, FED. CIV. PROC. BEFORE TRIAL 16:160.4 (1999); Hirst v. 17 Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1261 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 The Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate (Dkt. 105) should be denied. The Defendants have 19 failed to show that bifurcation would be more convenient or that they would be unduly 20 prejudiced if the remaining claims were tried together. Risk of prejudice or jury confusion can 21 be cured with effective jury instructions. See Estate of Hoxsey, C15-2013-RSM, 2016 WL 22 7724740, at *2. Bifurcation would not serve judicial economy. Moreover, the City of Roy’s 23 liability on the Fourth Amendment claim is tied to Officer Johnson’s liability. Separating the 24 1 issues could create confusion and uncertainty. The Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate (Dkt. 105) 2 should be denied. 3 B. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 4 The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 106) should be granted as follows: the Court 5 did not rule on the negligence claims asserted against the City of Roy because that claim was not 6 the subject of the motion for summary judgment. The findings of the July 7, 2021 Order related 7 to Johnson’s hiring, training, and supervision were on the Fourth Amendment claim against the 8 City of Roy. While the Defendants assert that these negligence claims against the City of Roy 9 should not be permitted to proceed, there is no motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ negligence claim 10 against the City of Roy based on Johnson’s hiring, training, and/or supervision. At this point in 11 the proceedings, the dispositive motions deadline has passed. Admissibility of evidence will be 12 determined at trial. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to 15 any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 16 Dated this 26th day of July, 2021. 17 A 18 ROBERT J. BRYAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24