Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00661-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv0661 OWW DLB

Consolidated with Case No.

1:05-CV-01017 OWW DLB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO TRIFURCATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document 55)

Defendants Officer Marcus Tafoya and the City of Fresno (“Defendants”) filed the instant

motion to trifurcate on June 12, 2006. The matter was heard before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 18, 2006. Kenneth W. Brakebill appeared on

behalf of Plaintiffs Gabriel and Rebecca Rodriguez (“Plaintiffs”). James Arendt appeared on

behalf of Defendants City of Fresno (“City”) and Fresno Police Officer Marcus Tafoya (“Officer

Tafoya”).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff David Rendon filed his civil rights complaint on May 20, 2005. Plaintiffs

Gabriel and Rebecca Rodriguez (“Plaintiffs”) filed their civil rights complaint on August 5,

2005. The cases have now been consolidated. 

Plaintiffs’ allegations arise out of their arrests on March 5, 2005. They allege causes of

action for: (1) violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments based on their false arrests

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 108 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

and the unreasonable use of force, including allegations that the City has a policy, pattern,

practice and custom of arresting individuals by using improper means (excessive force), of

detaining individuals without probable cause, and of condoning or encouraging the

unconstitutional conduct of the officers; (2) assault and battery; (3) false arrest and

imprisonment; and (4) negligent hiring and training. 

Defendants filed the instant motion to trifurcate on June 12, 2006, and seek to trifurcate

the claims for supervision and training alleged against the City of Fresno until such time as the

issues of liability against defendant Tafoya have been resolved, either by ruling of the Court on a

dispositive motion or by a decision on the merits by the trier of fact. Defendants argue that the

resolution of the liability issues against Tafoya may prove to be dispositive of the entire action,

including the liability issues against the City, as well as the claim for punitive damages against

Tafoya. Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims against the City will require the introduction

of evidence concerning the City’s policies, practices and customs, particularly in respect to

training and supervision of police officers. Defendants contend that there is no basis for the

imposition of liability against the City independent of that of defendant Tafoya at the scene of the

incident and therefore the allegations against Tafoya should be tried first to avoid potential

prejudice and confusion. 

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on June 30, 2006. Plaintiffs oppose the

motion to trifurcate arguing that separate trials on the negligence claims against the City would

cause a duplication of effort, inefficiencies, greater delay and greater expense. Plaintiffs argue

that under Defendants’ proposal, many witnesses would have to testify in both liability phases of

the trial and certain evidence would need to be submitted twice. Plaintiffs also argue that

Defendants have failed to analyze specific evidence and merely make speculative arguments in

efforts to justify separate trials. Plaintiffs argue this motion is premature as the very claims

defendants seek to separate are the subject of pending dispositive motions. Plaintiffs suggest that

the Pretrial Conference set for August 21, 2006 may be the more appropriate time to discuss the

trial structure.

///

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 108 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) provides:

The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when

separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a

separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim,

or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims,

counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues, always preserving inviolate

the right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the

Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States.

The decision to bifurcate ( or in this case trifurcate) is within the sound discretion of the

trial court. Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1261 (9th Cir. 1982). In making such a decision, the

court should consider whether separate trials would further judicial economy and avoid prejudice

and confusion. M2 Software, Inc., v. Madacy Entertainment, 421 F.3d 1073, 1088 (9th Cir.

2005). One favored purpose of bifurcation is to avoid a difficult question by first dealing with an

easier, dispositive issue. Hirst, 676 F.2d at 1261. 

Defendant’s arguments for trifurcating the claims for supervision and training against the

City of Fresno until such time as the issues of liability of defendant Tafoya have been resolved

depend in large part on the extent of the overlap of the evidence to be offered against Tafoya and

the City. Given that the parties are still involved in discovery and dispositive motions are

pending, an evaluation of the evidence is premature. Whether phasing the trial as requested by

defendants will result in any judicial economy will depend on the Monell claims, if any, that

remain for trial and the specific evidence to be introduced in support of and in defense of those

claims. These decisions will need to be made after motions in limine and at the Pretrial

Conference. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling the

motion for trifurcation at the time of the Pretrial Conference. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 19, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 108 Filed 07/20/06 Page 3 of 3