Opinion ID: 2973192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dunbar’s Motion to Bifurcate the Proceedings

Text: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) states: “The court, in furtherance of expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim.” In addition to speed and economy, the convenience of the parties and the avoidance of prejudice are important factors. See In re Beverly Hill Fire Litig., 695 F.2d 207, 216 (6th Cir. 1982). We review the denial of a motion to bifurcate for abuse of discretion, Yung v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 789 F.2d 397, 400 (6th Cir. 1986), which exists only upon a “definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” Taylor v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 734 F.2d 1152, 1155 (6th Cir. 1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion. Contracts 1 and 2 involve the same parties and arise out of the same project. The two mechanic’s liens at issue attach to the same property. The court found that bifurcating the proceedings would not serve judicial economy, would have little effect on the convenience of the parties in such a short trial, and was unnecessary to avoid prejudice because there was no jury to confuse. In short, the court reasonably weighed the relevant factors. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Dunbar’s motion to bifurcate. -3- Nos. 04-4376/4377 Specialty Minerals v. Dunbar Mechanical