Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01602/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01602-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

KAYNE MCCARTY, a minor, by and

through his Guardian ad Litem,

AMANDA McCARTY,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13cv1602-LAB (JLB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

BIFURCATE TRIAL (DOCKET NO. 72),

GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE

ATTORNEY (DOCKET NO. 90), AND

RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.

Defendants.

In this case, Kayne McCarty sues for an injury arising from his contact with hot water

in the bathroom of his family's residence. Defendant Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing,

LLC (CPQH) managed the residence. CPQH seeks to bifurcate the trial so that issues of

liability and damages are tried separately. (Docket no. 72.) CPQH also seeks to substitute

Dana Alden Fox, Esq. of Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard, & Smith, LLP (LBBS) in place of its

current counsel. (Docket no. 90). 

Bifurcation

In seeking bifurcation, CPQH argues that: (1) there are several damages-phase

witnesses, so it's most efficient to determine if there's liability before considering potentially

unnecessary damages evidence and (2) bifurcation will avoid the potential prejudice that

arises from Kayne's injury. (Docket no. 72.)

- 1 - 13cv1602

Case 3:13-cv-01602-LAB-JLB Document 99 Filed 08/20/15 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

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b), "[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and

economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims,

crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims." The decision to bifurcate rests within the

trial court's discretion. Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021 (9th

Cir. 2004). "A decision ordering bifurcation is dependent on the facts and circumstances of

each case." Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Bifurcation "is the

exception rather than the rule of normal trial procedure." Clark v. IRS., 772 F. Supp. 2d

1265, 1269 (D. Haw. 2009). "[T]he moving party has the burden of proving that the

bifurcation will promote judicial economy and avoid inconvenience or prejudice to the

parties." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Factors that courts consider in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate

include: (1) whether the issues are significantly different from one another; (2)

whether the issues are to be tried before a jury or to the court; (3) whether the

posture of discovery on the issues favors a single trial or bifurcation; (4)

whether the documentary and testimonial evidence on the issues overlap; and

(5) whether the party opposing bifurcation will be prejudiced if it is granted.

Id. (citation omitted).

Several of the same witnesses will testify to both liability and damages. (See Docket

no. 7-8.) And the evidence relevant to liability for McCarty's alleged injury overlaps with the

evidence that's relevant to damages from the injury. Thus, CPQH hasn't met its burden to

show that bifurcation is warranted.

Motion to Substitute Attorney

CPQH seeks to substitute in the LBBS law firm as their attorneys. (Docket no. 90). 

Because LBBS previously represented Defendant Robertshaw Controls Co. in this case, the

Court invited the parties to submit objections to the proposed representation. (Docket no.

93.) Objections were due by August 17, 2015. (Id.) Robertshaw didn't object, but McCarty

did. He argues that CPQH will seek to assign fault to Rheem and Robertshaw, and LBBS'

representation of CPQH is prejudicial in light of its prior representation of Robertshaw. 

(Docket no. 97.) He contends that "because Defendant Robertshaw has already reached

a settlement with the Plaintiff, it is the Plaintiff who risks severe prejudice . . . ." (Id. at 5.) 

- 2 - 13cv1602

Case 3:13-cv-01602-LAB-JLB Document 99 Filed 08/20/15 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

McCarty speculates that LBBS is privy to confidential information about Robertshaw

that it may use to question Robertshaw representatives at trial. But fact discovery is closed,

and McCarty doesn't explain how LBBS could get this unknown confidential information into

evidence. Thus, he hasn't shown any concrete injury that will result from LBBS'

representation of CPQH. Additionally, "[a]s a general rule, courts do not disqualify an

attorney on the grounds of conflict of interest unless the former client moves for

disqualification." Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir. 1998). Because McCarty

was never in an attorney-client relationship with LBBS, he lacks standing to seek

disqualification. See Hechavarria v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 463 F. App'x 632, 633

(9th Cir. 2011). Disqualification of LBBS isn't warranted.

Conclusion

CPQH's motion to bifurcate the trial (Docket no. 72) is DENIED. CPQH's motion to

substitute counsel (Docket no. 90) is GRANTED. The pretrial conference for this case is

currently scheduled for September 21, 2015. It's rescheduled for September 14, 2015 at

11:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 19, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1602

Case 3:13-cv-01602-LAB-JLB Document 99 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3