Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01104/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01104-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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 - 09cv1104

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY RIESER; SHARYL RIESER;

CYNTHIA THOMPSON; SECURITY

CAPITAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09-CV-1104 JLS (AJB)

ORDER: (1) DENYING JOINT

MOTION TO BIFURCATE AN

ISSUE FOR BENCH TRIAL;

(2) MODIFYING SCHEDULING

ORDER

(Doc. No. 40)

vs.

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to bifurcate an issue for bench trial.

(Doc. No. 40.) The Court finds that the parties have failed to demonstrate good cause for their request.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) (“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the

court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues . . . .”); Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252,

1261 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that district court has discretion to bifurcate). Although the Court

understands the parties’ desire to avoid the costs associated with the presentation of expert testimony,

the Court believes that expert testimony would assist the trier of fact in resolving the disputed

issue—whether “the judgment in the underlying action [was] effectively a default judgment that can

be said to be a foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of its duty to defend.” (Doc.

No. 36, at 6.) Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion to bifurcate is DENIED. Plaintiffs SHALL

DISCLOSE the identity of their expert in writing within 14 days of the date this Order is

Case 3:09-cv-01104-JLS-MDD Document 41 Filed 12/27/10 Page 1 of 2
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 - 09cv1104

electronically docketed. The parties shall identify their respective rebuttal experts within 28 days of

the date this Order is electronically docketed. The scheduling order (Doc. No. 38) is HEREBY

MODIFIED accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 27, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01104-JLS-MDD Document 41 Filed 12/27/10 Page 2 of 2