1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNA PARKS, Case No.: 20cv989-LL-RBB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO BIFURCATE 14 ETHICON, INC.; [ECF No. 205] JOHNSON & JOHNSON, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson 19 (“Defendants”) Motion for a Separate Trial on Statute of Limitations (Bifurcation) 20 (hereinafter “Motion” or “Motion to Bifurcate”). ECF No. 205. Plaintiff Donna Parks filed 21 an Opposition (“Oppo.”). ECF No. 207. The Court finds the matter suitable for decision 22 without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and, for the following 23 reasons, DENIES Defendants’ Motion. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in 2014 as part of a large multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) 26 action before the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia 27 asserting medical products liability. ECF No. 1; In re Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair System 28 Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2327 (S.D. W. Va.). The action stems from the 1 surgical implantation of Defendants’ pelvic mesh product Gynemesh/Gynemesh PS in 2 January 2010. ECF No. 1 at 3–4; ECF No. 56-1. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of 3 action: (1) negligence, (2) strict liability – manufacturing defect, (3) strict liability – failure 4 to warn, (4) strict liability – defective product, (5) strict liability – design defect, 5 (6) common law fraud, (7) fraudulent concealment, (8) negligent misrepresentation, 6 (9) breach of express warranty, (10) breach of implied warranty, (11) violation of consumer 7 protection laws, (12) loss of consortium, (13) punitive damages, and (14) discovery rule 8 and tolling. ECF No. 1 at 4–5. On October 16, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion 9 for summary judgment as to the following causes of action in their entirety: (1) strict 10 liability – manufacturing defect, (2) strict liability – defective product, (3) strict liability – 11 design defect, (4) loss of consortium, (5) breach of express warranty, and (6) breach of 12 implied warranty. ECF No. 109 at 11–12, 18–19. 13 On May 28, 2020, the MDL court transferred this matter back to this district for trial. 14 ECF No. 55 at 2. On January 5, 2022, this matter was transferred to the undersigned judge. 15 ECF No. 182. The parties have a pretrial conference set in this case on August 18, 2022, at 16 which time the Court will set a trial date. ECF No. 202. Defendants now move to bifurcate, 17 asking the Court to order separate trials with separate juries: one on the statute of 18 limitations defense and one on the merits of the case. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) provides that “[f]or convenience, to avoid 21 prejudice, or to expedite and to economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or 22 more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 42(b). A district court has “broad discretion” in determining whether to bifurcate a 24 trial under Rule 42(b). Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302, F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). 25 The party seeking bifurcation has the burden to prove bifurcation is justified. Spectra- 26 Physics Lasers, Inc., v. Uniphase Corp., 144 F.R.D. 99, 101 (N.D. Cal. 1992). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Defendants argue that bifurcation on the “threshold issue” of whether Plaintiff’s 3 claims are time-barred is warranted because: “a trial on this limited issue could dispose of 4 the case in one day, with no expert testimony, minimal pretrial motion practice, and a vastly 5 reduced number of witnesses and exhibits.” Motion at 4. Defendants contend that 6 “a bifurcated trial thus has the potential to reduce the burden of a full trial on the parties, 7 the Court, and jurors.” Id. Defendants further contend that a separate trial on the statute of 8 limitations defense would promote judicial economy without prejudicing Plaintiff. 9 Id. at 7-12. 10 In response, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to show that bifurcation 11 is proper here. Oppo. at 6. Plaintiff argues that “[D]efendants’ statute of limitations 12 argument, even if successful, would not be dispositive of the entire case” because 13 “Plaintiff’s claims with three-and four-year statute of limitations are not subject to 14 Defendants’ statute of limitations argument.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff further argues that “[u]nder 15 these circumstances, bifurcating this matter would serve no purpose other than to 16 significantly prejudice Plaintiff and further strain the resources of the federal judiciary 17 already taxed to the limit due to the impact of COVID.” Id. Plaintiff also argues that 18 separate trials would violate Plaintiff’s Seventh Amendment rights. Id. at 23. 19 The Court finds that bifurcating this action will not economize proceedings. It is 20 undisputed that if Defendants do not prevail on their statute of limitations defense, the 21 parties would need to have a second trial on the merits issue. Plaintiff also argues that the 22 statute of limitations defense only applies to certain claims, so the remaining claims would 23 need to be tried on the merits even if Defendants prevailed on the statute of limitations 24 defense on the applicable claims. This situation would require a jury to serve twice with a 25 potentially significant period of time between the two trials. This consideration, among 26 others, convinces the Court that judicial economy is best served by resolving this action in 27 a single trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (The Federal Rules of Civil 28 Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties 1 || to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.’’). 2 || Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Bifurcate. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 ||Dated: August 3, 2022 NO 7 Je Fs | g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 light of this ruling, it is unnecessary for the Court to address Plaintiff's arguments regarding the Seventh Amendment.