Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03385/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03385-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CYPRESS AMLOC LAND CO., et al,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-04-03385 EDL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO BIFURCATE

Plaintiff San Bruno Mountain Watch, a non-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation,

protection and restoration of San Bruno Mountain and its unique resources, brought this citizen enforcement

action under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251, et seq.,

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901, et seq. and California Business &

Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. against Defendants Cypress Amloc Land Company, Cypress Abbey

Company, Amloc Companies, Jeff Terry and Thomas Atwood. Plaintiff seeks an order bifurcating the

liability and remedy phases of this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b):

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 . . . always preserving inviolate the right of trial by

jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution or as given by

a statute of the United States.

Bifurcation under Rule 42(b) is discretionary. Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1261 (9th Cir. 1982). 

When deciding whether to bifurcate, a court should consider: (1) whether separate trials would be in

furtherance of convenience; (2) whether separate trials would avoid prejudice; (3) whether separate trials

would serve judicial economy; (4) whether separate trials would reduce the risk of jury confusion; and (5)

Case 3:04-cv-03385-EDL Document 102 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

whether the issues are clearly separable. See William W. Schwarzer, Civil Procedure Before Trial, §

16:160.4 (The Rutter Group 2005). 

On balance, Plaintiff has met its burden of establishing that bifurcation is appropriate in this case. 

Bifurcation would be in furtherance of convenience and would serve judicial economy. If the trier of fact

concludes that Defendants have no liability, there will be no need to conduct discovery or hear evidence on

purely remedial issues, which are likely to be complex in this environmental case. To the extent that

Defendants are found liable for any of the claims, discovery and the presentation of evidence in the remedy

phase, particularly as to injunctive relief, but also as to any civil penalties, can be focused on remediation of

the liability that was actually found. Indeed, bifurcation is often ordered in environmental cases. See, e.g.,

Northwest Environmental Advocates v. City of Portland, 56 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Although the parties dispute whether Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial as to liability, they agree that

the remedy phase under both the Clean Water Act and RCRA will be tried to the Court. Therefore,

bifurcation will not risk jury confusion, inconvenience any jury or require separate juries. 

Separate trials will not cause prejudice to any party. Defendants argue that they would be

prejudiced by potentially having to take two depositions of many of the same witnesses, once for the

liability phase and once for the remedy phase. However, the initial deposition during the liability phase will

be shorter because the issues are limited, and if the trier of fact finds no liability, Defendants will avoid

second depositions altogether. Further, discovery on remedies is separable from discovery on liability. 

The issues are clearly separable in this case. Defendants argue that the issues are not separable

because the substance of the testimony regarding liability will overlap with testimony relevant to remedies. 

For example, Defendants say that one of the substantive issues for determination at trial will be whether

Defendants have used the Best Management Practices to control the pollutants in storm water runoff and

that testimony about this liability issue overlaps with some of the factors that the Court must consider under

the Clean Water Act in setting the amount of civil penalty. See 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d) (“In determining the

amount of a civil penalty, the court shall consider the seriousness of the violation or violations, the economic

benefit (if any) resulting from the violation, any history of such violations, any good-faith efforts to comply

with the applicable requirements, the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and such other matters

as justice may require.”). Plaintiff argues that the Clean Water Act imposes strict liability, so the factors to

Case 3:04-cv-03385-EDL Document 102 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

be analyzed for the remedies are not relevant for liability. See 33 U.S.C. § 3311(a) (strict liability of Clean

Water Act). Even if there is some overlap, the Court is not convinced that the overlap would be so

substantial as to warrant denial of the motion to bifurcate. Furthermore, the Court will hear the evidence in

the first phase and would not need to have it repeated in the second phase to the extent that it is also

relevant to remedy. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate is granted. At this time, the case will proceed on

liability issues under the Clean Water Act and RCRA. However, any discovery that is even arguably

related to both liability and remedy must be conducted during the liability phase. 

The parties shall notify the Court no later than December 2, 2005 as to whether they want a

referral to a settlement conference with a magistrate judge. 

Defendants shall file any motion to strike Plaintiff’s jury demand no later than December 6, 2005. 

After the Court determines the issue, or if Defendants do not file such a motion, immediately after the

deadline passes the parties shall meet and confer and jointly propose a tentative schedule for discovery and

trial of the remedy phase. 

No later than ten calendar days after the California Supreme Court issues its opinion on whether

Proposition 64 applies to cases pending as of the date of its enactment, the parties shall notify the Court of

that decision. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03385-EDL Document 102 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 3