UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

VILMA MARQUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONAL FIRE AND MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant National Fire & Marine Insurance 

Company’s (“Defendant”) Expedited Motion to Bifurcate Issues of Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees 

from Amount of Award, ECF No. [191] (“Motion”). Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition, ECF 

No. [193], to which Defendant filed a Reply, ECF No. [194] (“Reply”). The Court has reviewed 

the Motion, the Response, the Reply, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise 

fully advised. For the reasons set forth below the Motion is denied. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Vilma Marquez brought a claim for insurance benefits owed pursuant to her 

homeowner’s insurance policy (“Policy”). ECF No. [1-1] at 3-8, 131-136. Defendant issued the

Policy to Plaintiff and her husband for their property located in Miami, Florida (“Property”). See 

ECF No. [133-1]. During the Policy period, the Property sustained a covered loss. See ECF No. 

[1-1] at 3-8, 131-136. Plaintiff thereafter filed suit, alleging that Defendant breached the Policy by 

failing or refusing to properly adjust and pay her claim. ECF No. [1-1] at 3-8; 131-136. Defendant 

asserted that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the Policy for a number of reasons, 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2023 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

2

including that Plaintiff had not made any repairs to the Property and therefore did not incur the 

costs she sought to recover, as required by the Policy language. See id. at 151-156. 

The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for 

$136,484.46. ECF No. [135]. The Court thereupon entered a Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 

ECF No. [137]. Defendant filed its Omnibus Post Trial Motion, in which Defendant renewed its 

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and moved to alter or 

amend the judgment or for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). ECF No. [152]. The Court 

referred Defendant’s Omnibus Post Trial Motion to Magistrate Judge Louis for a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). ECF No. [155]. On August 8, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis issued 

her R&R in which she recommended that Defendant’s Omnibus Post Trial Motion be denied. ECF 

No. [179]. On October 13, 2023, the Court adopted the recommendations in Judge Louis’s R&R. 

ECF No. [184]. 

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Reissuance of Checks. ECF No. 

[185]. The Court referred the Motion to Judge Louis. ECF No. [187]. On May 5, 2023, Judge Louis 

issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Reissuance of Checks. ECF No. [189].

In its instant Motion, Defendant seeks an Order from the Court bifurcating the issues of 

entitlement to attorneys’ fees from the amount of a potential award of attorneys’ fees. ECF No. 

[191] at 3. In support, Defendant argues that bifurcation is appropriate because it would be more 

efficient “to permit the parties to fully brief the threshold issue of entitlement prior to addressing 

amount.” ECF No. [191]. Plaintiff’s response largely focuses on whether Plaintiff is entitled to 

fees, rather than directly addressing the issue of whether the Court should exercise its discretion 

to bifurcate the issues of entitlement and amount of attorneys’ fees. See generally ECF No. [193].

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2023 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

3

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides that a “court may decide issues of liability for 

fees before receiving submissions on the value of services.” Fed R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(C). Similarly 

Local Rule 7.3 states that “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(C), either party 

may move the Court to determine entitlement prior to submission on the issue of amount.”

“Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) establishes the general guidelines regarding when it is appropriate 

to bifurcate trials. It states the following as valid reasons for bifurcation: ‘convenience, to avoid 

prejudice, or to expedite and economize.’” Gables Ins. Recovery v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 

No. 13-CV-21142, 2013 WL 4068786 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2013). A court in this district has applied 

the same guidelines “when deciding whether to bifurcate motions for attorney’s fees and costs into 

entitlement and amount.” Id. (citing Rolls–Royce Commercial Marine, Inc., v. N.H. Ins. Co., No. 

09-CV-61329, ECF Nos. [119]; [134] (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011)).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that bifurcation is appropriate because “it would be more efficient and 

economical to permit the parties to fully brief the threshold issue of entitlement prior to addressing 

amount.” ECF No. [191] at 3. Defendant then proceeds to explain why it believes Plaintiff failed 

to file a motion for attorneys’ fees within the time prescribed by the local rule. Plaintiff responds 

that the “issue of entitlement and amount to be awarded should be resolved together once the Fee 

Motion is filed.” ECF No. [193] at 6. Plaintiff does not argue why bifurcation would not be the 

most efficient manner to proceed, and instead presents her argument as to why entitlement should 

be decided in her favor. 

Given the timing of Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate, prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, and this issues raised therein, the Court agrees with Defendant that it 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2023 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

4

will be more efficient and in the interest of judicial economy to first consider the threshold issue 

of entitlement prior to addressing the amount. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate, 

ECF No. [191], is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit a Motion for Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees 

no later than July 5, 2023.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 14, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2023 Page 4 of 4