Summary
bifurcating indemnification crossclaims from trial on liability to avoid unnecessary litigation and prejudice
Summary of this case from Mosca v. City of New YorkOpinion
00 Civ. 5951 (WK)
November 29, 2001
For Plaintiff: Florrie L. Wertheimer, Wertheimer Associates, P.C., New York, NY.
For Defendants The Bridgeport Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. and McAllister Bros., Inc.: Mark F. Muller, Freehill, Hogan Mahar, New York, NY.
For Defendant Frank Marino: James Edwards, Therese M. Hough, Ahmuty, Demers McManus, New York, NY.
ORDER
Plaintiff Michael McGuire ("Plaintiff") brought this action against Defendants The Bridgeport Port Jefferson Steamboat Company ("Bridgeport"), McAllister Bros., Inc. ("McAllister"), and Frank Marino ("Marino") to recover for injuries which he sustained while working aboard a ferry when Marino allegedly struck him from behind with a pick-up truck. Over the course of this action, Bridgeport and McAllister have asserted a cross-claim against Marino for indemnification and Marino has similarly asserted a cross-claim for indemnification against Bridgeport and McAllister.
With trial set to begin on December 4, 2001, the Court hereby sua sponte bifurcates the trial with respect to the two cross-claims for indemnification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). "The decision to separate claims and bifurcate a trial rests firmly within the discretion of the trial court." Harris v. Rivera (S.D.N.Y. 1995) 921 F. Supp. 1058, 1062. "Rule 42(b) affords a trial court the discretion to order separate trials where such an order will further convenience, avoid prejudice, or promote efficiency. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). Therefore, bifurcation may be appropriate where, for example, the litigation of the first issue might eliminate the need to ligate the second issue. . . . or where one party will be prejudiced by evidence presented against another party." Amato v. City of Saratoga Springs (2d Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 311, 316. The court has the power to order such bifurcation sua sponte. See Huffmaster v. United States (N.D.Cal. 1960) 186 F. Supp. 120, 124. See also LNC Investments, Inc. v. First Fidelity Bank (S.D.N.Y. April 12, 2000) 2000 WL 422399, *2 (recognizing that Judge Mukasey decided to bifurcate a trial sua sponte).
As litigation over Plaintiff's claims may eliminate the need to litigate the indemnification claims, bifurcation would be appropriate in this case. See Amato, 170 F.3d at 316. If the jury decides that no defendant is liable for Plaintiff's alleged injuries, there may be no need to litigate whether any of the defendants are entitled to indemnification. Such bifurcation will also avoid any potential prejudice to defendants arising from the presentation of evidence relevant to indemnification.
Other courts which have addressed this scenario have bifurcated the trial on the indemnification issue. In Harris, the plaintiff sued various correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and one of the officers sought indemnification from various defendants. See Harris, 921 F. Supp. at 1060. Judge Scheindlin bifurcated the trial by separating trial on the indemnification issue from the trial on plaintiff's claims them selves and held that the jury would only be given the defendant's indemnification claim if they first found in favor of the plaintiff. Id. See also Edwards v. International Business Machines Corp. (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 1994) 1994 WL 532499, *9 (recognizing that any prejudice to defendants arising from the airing of indemnity issues before a jury could be remedied by bifurcating the trial into liability and indemnity phases).
In this instance, the jury will be given Plaintiff's claims and will decide questions of liability (including whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages, and if so, the scope of such damages). They jury will not, however, address Bridgeport, McAllister, and Marino's cross-claims for indemnification. If the jury decides in favor of Plaintiff, the court will then address the cross-claims for indemnification.
Given this Court's decision to bifurcate the trial with respect to the indemnification claims, the parties should not present evidence at the trial which is relevant solely to whether any defendants are entitled to indemnification or to the appropriate scope of such indemnification. This restriction is not intended to prevent the parties from submitting evidence which is relevant to a trial on Plaintiff's claims.
SO ORDERED.