Evans v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Evans v. State of Connecticut

    967 F. Supp. 673 (D. Conn. 1997)   Cited 33 times
    Rejecting defendant's claim that proof of mitigation was insufficiently documented

    On July 15, 1996, plaintiff moved for a hearing on remedy, limited discovery and designation of an expert to assess back pay damages and the plausibility of reinstatement, which was granted. 168 F.R.D. 118 (D.Conn. 1996). The court also ruled that Evans' request, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 37"), for default judgment and attorney's fees for defendants' failure to produce relevant records throughout this case would be taken up at the damages phase of the case.

  2. Moore v. Brennan

    Civil Action 18-12270 (E.D. La. Dec. 17, 2021)

    In addition, Plaintiff relies on a list of six factors, used by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in considering a motion for bifurcation, to support her request. See Evans v. State of Conn., 168 F.R.D. 118, 120-21 (D. Conn. 1996). There Plaintiff was seeking a hearing and additional discovery on the issues of back pay and reinstatement, after the Court had already found Defendant liable.

  3. Bayou Fleet P'ship v. St. Charles Parish

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1557 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    In the context of Civil Rights actions, several district courts have bifurcated the issue of liability and damages in the interest of judicial economy and to avoid juror confusion, when there is little overlap between the evidence and witnesses for each issue. See Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux city, Iowa, 438 F.Supp. 2d. 1005, 1041 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Evans v. State of Conn., 168 F.R.D. 118, 121 (D. Conn. 1996); Gauthreaux v.Baylor Univ. Medical Center, 876 F.Supp. 847, 848 (N.D. Tex. 1994). In a patent infringement action, a district court relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) has ordered distinct phases with respect to liability and damages, as an alternative to ordering separate trials.

  4. In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation

    765 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 110 times
    Holding that " jury could ... easily conclude that a reasonable investor would ... view" a struggling company's CEO's "misstatements/omissions regarding cash flow as significantly altering the ‘total mix’ of information available"

    of individual reliance were reserved for after the class trial, the absence of such an order is not dispositive. See Evans v. Connecticut, 168 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D. Conn. 1996) (absence of court order bifurcating trial into liability and damages phase did not bar plaintiff in Title VII action from seeking back pay and reinstatement after a trial on liability issues even though he failed to present evidence regarding such issues during trial).

  5. Ejchorszt v. Daigle

    Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-01350 (CFD) (D. Conn. Jun. 16, 2009)

    "The decision to bifurcate a trial into liability and damage phases rests within the discretion of the trial court."Evans v. State of Conn., 168 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D. Conn. 1996) (citing Getty Petroleum Corp. v. Island Transp. Corp., 862 F.2d 10, 15 (2d Cir. 1988)). The Second Circuit has explained the following regarding bifurcation on the issue of punitive damages: