Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00489/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00489-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 45:0051 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act

---

1

17cv489 JM (KSC)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH DELFS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 

COMPANY, a corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv489 JM (KSC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO BIFURCATE

Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Defendant”) moves the court to 

bifurcate this action and order a trial limited solely to the issue of scope of employment. 

(Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff Kenneth Delfs (“Plaintiff”) opposes. (Doc. No. 16.) The court

finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

7.1(d)(1) and, for the following reasons, denies Defendant’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action to recover from Defendant under the Federal 

Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq., for injuries he sustained in 

2014. On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff suffered injuries while a passenger in a vehicle driven 

by a coworker. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 11–12.) Plaintiff had been working as a signalman near 

Case 3:17-cv-00489-JM-KSC Document 24 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv489 JM (KSC)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Niland, California, as an employee of Defendant. While working in Niland, Plaintiff stayed 

at a Best Western Motel paid for by Defendant. 

Plaintiff alleges that his foreman called him on the evening of March 14, 2014, to 

have him attend a dinner with the signal gang, during which they would discuss work 

assignments. A coworker picked up Plaintiff from his motel and drove him to the 

restaurant. At dinner, Plaintiff alleges that “virtually the entire conversation centered 

around the work that needed to be performed the following day.” (Doc. No. 13-2 

(“Gibbons Decl.”) Exh. A.) Afterwards, Plaintiff entered his coworker’s vehicle to return 

to the motel. While exiting the parking lot, they were struck by an oncoming vehicle, 

injuring Plaintiff. (Id.) 

According to Defendant, the dinner was not work-related and Plaintiff was off duty 

at the time of the car accident. (See Gibbons Decl. Exhs. C, D, E.) Defendant filed the 

instant motion to bifurcate on February 8, 2018. (Doc. No. 13.) 

LEGAL STANDARDS

The court has broad discretion to bifurcate a trial “[f]or convenience, to avoid 

prejudice, or to expedite and economize” proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). “Whether 

there should be severance and separate trial of an issue is primarily a question concerning 

the court’s trial procedure and convenience, not a question concerning the merits of the 

case.” Richmond v. Weiner, 353 F.2d 41, 45 (9th Cir. 1965).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff cannot recover under FELA unless he was injured while acting within the 

scope of his employment. Defendant argues that the court should bifurcate this action and 

hold a separate trial on the scope of employment issue to save judicial resources because it 

estimates that the issues of medical causation and damages will require numerous witnesses 

and judicial resources, whereas Defendant asserts that a trial on the scope of employment 

could be completed in one or two days. Defendant also cites out-of-circuit cases to argue 

that bifurcating this action “may also avoid the potential for prejudice” against it because 

evidence of Plaintiff’s injuries may impair the jury’s objectivity. (Doc. No. 13-1 at 6 

Case 3:17-cv-00489-JM-KSC Document 24 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv489 JM (KSC)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(emphasis added).) 

Plaintiff opposes bifurcation, and argues that holding separate trials will “impose 

unnecessary time and expense on the parties and court.” (Doc. No. 16 at 5.) Plaintiff also 

notes that the coworkers who would testify regarding whether Plaintiff was injured while 

acting within the scope of his employment would need to be present at the second trial to 

testify because they were witnesses to the accident. 

The court finds that bifurcating this action will not economize proceedings. 

Defendant seeks to stay expert discovery until after the trial on the scope of employment 

issue, which it argues will conserve judicial resources. (Doc. Nos. 13-1 at 6, 14 at 2.) 

However, if Plaintiff prevails on the scope of employment issue, the parties would need to 

finish expert discovery before conducting trial on the remaining issues. This situation 

would require the jury to serve twice with a significant period of time between the two 

trials. This consideration, among others, convinces the court that judicial economy is best 

served by resolving this action in a single trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42; see also Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 1 (The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and 

employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

determination of every action and proceeding.”). Therefore, the court denies Defendant’s 

motion. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Defendant’s motion to bifurcate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2018 

JEFFREY T. MILLER

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00489-JM-KSC Document 24 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3