Opinion ID: 4521943
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bifurcating Michels from Trial

Text: We review a district court’s decision to bifurcate a trial for abuse of discretion. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Justin Combs Pub., 507 F.3d 470, 481 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Wilson v. Morgan, 477 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2007)). “The decision whether to try issues separately is within the sound discretion of the court . . . . It follows, therefore, that a decision to try an issue separately will be affirmed unless the potential for prejudice to the parties is such as to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion.” Bath & Body Works, Inc. v. Luzier Personalized Cosmetics, Inc., 76 F.3d 743, 747 (6th Cir. 1996). “For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). At the final pretrial hearing, counsel for Michels explained that instructions regarding the different measures of damages for Columbia and Michels—namely, that Columbia could only be held liable for contractual damages whereas Michels might also be held liable in tort—would confuse the jury. The district court sua sponte ordered a separate trial for Michels. R. 311 at PageID 14064–68. The district court “reiterated that this is a contract action and that several items of evidence that might be admissible in a tort action are not admissible in a contract action.” R. 246 at PageID 12413–15. The court concluded 10 Nos. 19-5641/5696, Nelson v. Columbia Gas that Michels “would be an unwarranted distraction from the main issue in the case, which is restoration cost of plaintiff’s pasture in the claimed amount of some two million dollars.” Id. Further, Nelson cannot show that, in the end, she was prejudiced by the decision to bifurcate Michels from trial. She claims that she was prejudiced because, by bifurcating Michels, she was prohibited from pursuing punitive damages against Michels. But because, as noted below, Nelson’s claims against Michels are actually for breach of contract, she is not entitled to punitive damages as a matter of law. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.184(4) (“In no case shall punitive damages be awarded for breach of contract.”). Given the complexity of this case, the court’s motive to prevent jury confusion, and the need for judicial economy, the district court’s decision to bifurcate Michels from trial was not an abuse of discretion.