Marshbanks v. City of Calumet City

2 Citing cases

  1. Loury v. City of Chi.

    Case No. 16-CV-04452 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2017)   Cited 6 times

    Id. As a result, the Court reasoned that, given the factual overlap between the claims, rather than simplifying the discovery process, bifurcation could potentially "add unnecessary complexity and confusion," and accordingly, found that making a "clear determination of judicial economy favoring bifurcation [was] speculative at best." Id. See also Marshbanks v. City of Calumet City, No. 13 C 2978, 2015 WL 1234930, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2015) (explaining that because defendant officers asserted qualified immunity, there was a possibility that holding the municipality liable "would not create an inconsistent verdict with a jury finding that [the officers] are not liable"). The Court's reasoning in McIntosh is directly applicable in this case.

  2. McIntosh v. City of Chi.

    No. 15 C 1920 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 2, 2015)

    At this stage of the litigation, however, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants know what evidence will actually be offered at a trial to establish the individual officers' liability and Defendant City's liability. Without knowing what the evidence is and the actual prejudice being faced, the Court cannot properly assess the potential for any undue prejudice against the individual officers in having to present their case with Defendant City. To the extent that Defendants continue to have concerns of undue prejudice, the Court—at a later stage—may still order a bifurcation of trial or can "restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly." See Fed. R. Evid. 105; see also Marshbanks v. City of Calumet, No. 13 C 2978, 2015 WL 1234930, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2015) (explaining that potential prejudice at trial is "best cured by proper jury instructions and pre-trial evidentiary challenges"); Awalt, 2012 WL 1161500, at *13 ("The [c]ourt has at its disposal an[y] number of tools to properly order and organize a trial that will not be unfairly prejudicial to any of the [d]efendants"). C. Pragmatism and Recovery of Damages