Opinion ID: 2582211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Plaintiffs' Motion to Bifurcate

Text: After the circuit court had dismissed the first amended complaint, but before denying their motion to amend, the plaintiffs filed a motion to bifurcate on November 28, 2003. They asserted that the request for bifurcation is in part based on [their] request to amend [their] declaratory relief prayer in the revised second amended complaint. Thus, the plaintiffs requested the circuit court to rule on the [the motion to amend] before ruling on this motion because [the plaintiffs'] prayer for declaratory liability relief is an important part of this motion. Specifically, the plaintiffs asked the circuit court to allow [them] to proceed with the liability issues in this case including the pursuit of the declaratory liability relief sought and any other relief that is not based on Act 304 as a measure of damages ( e.g., nominal damages, attorneys' fees and costs), inasmuch as these issues are clearly justiciable. [12] On December 1, 2003, the State filed its memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to bifurcate. The State argued that: Bifurcation is improper because: (1) [the plaintiffs] ignore[ ] the expedition and economy requirements of the plain text of Hawaii Rule of Civil Procedure [(HRCP) Rule] 42(b) [(2003) [13] ]; (2) [the plaintiffs'] position is illogical, and the requested bifurcation can serve no legal purpose; and (3) there is no case law supporting [the plaintiffs'] request for bifurcation. The State additionally asserted: Even more fundamentally, [the plaintiffs'] request is not really a request for bifurcation at all. Bifurcation typically involves separating two claims or issues and then considering them sequentially. The purpose is to avoid unnecessarily litigating the second claim or issue if the first is resolved a certain way ( e.g., determining liability first, so that issues of damages need not be considered unless and until the first phase results in a finding of liability). In stark contrast, there indisputably will not be a second phase in this case because this court has already ruled that there are no judicially manageable standards to provide OHA a remedy. OHA does not actually seek bifurcation, but, rather, seeks a one-step-only ruling on liability, with no judicial remedy step ever to follow. Rather than bifurcate so that resolving a dependent issue ( e.g., remedy) might be avoided once a preceding issue is determined ( e.g., a ruling denying liability), OHA asks for the exact opposite: it asks this court to reach an issue that it has already determined need not be reached because no remedy can issue even if liability were found. Thus, rather than bifurcating to preserve scarce judicial resources, OHA asks for bifurcation to burden judicial resources for no practical purpose. (Emphasis in original.) After a hearing on the matter, the circuit court entered an order denying the plaintiffs request to bifurcate the justiciable and nonjusticiable issues.