Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00165-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KOVACEVICH “5" FARMS, a partnership,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:06-cv-00165 OWW TAG

ORDER BIFURCATING LIABILITY AND

DAMAGE PHASES OF TRIAL

(Docs. 22 and 27)

Background

On February 13, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)

commenced this civil action against defendant Kovacevich “5” Farms. (Doc. 1). The complaint

alleges unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. (Id.) Furthermore, the complaint

seeks appropriate relief on behalf of the following six charging parties: Patricia Delgado, Myriam

Cazares, Flor Rivera, Miriam Delgado, Terri Salcido and Delia Casas. (Id.)

On August 10, 2006, the parties filed a joint motion to bifurcate the liability from

damages phases of the trial. (Doc. 22). That joint motion to bifurcate was followed by a

Stipulation and Proposed Order to the same effect on September 7, 2006. (Doc. 27). The

stipulation requests the Court to order “bifurcation of proceedings in this litigation into two

phases, the first to be a liability phase focusing on claims of no more than ten class

representatives, and the second phase to address the issue of damages. During any such liability

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 31 Filed 09/19/06 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

phase, Defendant will not inquire about witnesses’ legal status and ability to work in the United

States.” (Doc. 27). 

Applicable Law

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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Rule 42(b) “confers broad discretion upon the district court to bifurcate a trial, thereby

deferring costly and possibly unnecessary proceedings pending resolution of potentially

dispositive preliminary issues.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080,

1088 (9th Cir. 2002); see also M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy Entertainment, 421 F.3d 1073, 1088

(9th Cir. 2005). As one commentator has noted, “Rule 42(b) provides the district court with

discretion to subdivide the case in whatever manner seems dictated by the circumstances.”

Wright & Miller, 9 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2389 (2d ed. 1995). A ruling that orders

bifurcation is appropriate if the “ruling (1) serves the interests of judicial economy or is done to

prevent prejudice to a party; (2) does not unfairly prejudice the non-moving party; and (3) does

not violate the Seventh Amendment.” Krocka v. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507, 516 (7th Cir.

2000). Courts within the Ninth Circuit often have bifurcated liability from damages, and Rule

42(b) gives courts the authority to separate trials into liability and damages phases. See M2

Software, 41 F.3d at 1088; Ortega v. O’Connor, 146 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 1998); Hopkins v.

Dow Corning Corp., 33 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 1994); DeAnda v. City of Long Beach, 7 F.3d

1418, 1421 (9th Cir. 1993); Arthur Young & Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 549 F.2d 686, 697

(9th Cir. 1977). However, “piecemeal trial of separate issues in a single suit is not to be the usual

course [and] should be resorted to only in the exercise of informed discretion when the court

believes that separation will achieve the purposes of the rule.” Hangarter v. Paul Revere Life Ins.

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 31 Filed 09/19/06 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

The Court notes that pursuant to the Order Amending Scheduling Order (Doc. 25), October 16, 2006 is 1

the deadline to file any motion for determination under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1) whether the action is to be maintained

as a class action. 

3

Co., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2002), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds,

373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004).

In the instant case, the parties have stipulated to the bifurcation of the liability and

damages phases of this action. The parties have further stipulated that “[d]uring . . . [the]

liability phase, Defendant will not inquire about witnesses’ legal status and ability to work in the

United States.” (Doc. 27). See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (court

affirmed a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Snyder which prevented inquiry into

plaintiffs’ immigration status so as not to chill the assertion of employment-based civil rights

claims).

It appearing to the Court that the Joint Motion to Bifurcate (Doc. 22) and corresponding

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Bifurcate (Doc. 27) furthers the convenience of the parties, is

prejudicial to neither party and is conducive to expedition of the case and to judicial economy, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that in the event this action is to be maintained as a class action, it 1

shall be BIFURCATED into two phases, the first to be a liability phase focusing on claims of no

more than ten class representatives, and the second phase to address the issue of damages. 

During any such liability phase, Defendant will not inquire about witnesses’ legal status and

ability to work in the United States.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 31 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 3