“In order to avoid prejudice or for court convenience, a court may bifurcate a trial.” (See M. R. Civ. P. 42(b); Eklund v. Trost (2006) 335 Mont. 112, 129.)
“It is not appropriate to bifurcate issues when the issues are so intertwined that if they are separated it will create confusion and uncertainty, or needless and endless litigation.” (See Henricksen v. State (2004) 319 Mont. 307, 316; State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Dist. Court (1985) 217 Mont. 106, 118, 703 P.2d 148, 156; Miller v. Fairchild Industries, Inc. (9th Cir. 1989), 885 F.2d 498, 511.)
“Multiple trials and appeals arising from a single dispute may create a severe burden in terms of increased cost to the litigants, delay in resolution of the controversy, and court congestion.” (See Standard Ins. Co. v. Sturdevant (1977) 173 Mont. 23, 28.)
“Where there is no danger of prejudice and the issues are not complex the necessity of separate trials should be carefully weighed by the district court to ensure the rule is not abused.” (See id.)
Rule 42(b) of the Montana Rules for Civil Procedure governs separate trials.
“For 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. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 42(b).)
“The decision whether to bifurcate claims…is a matter left to the broad discretion of the district court." (See Eklund v. Trost (2006) 335 Mont. 112, 129; Henricksen v. State (2004) 319 Mont. 307, 316; Malta Public School Dist. v. 17th Jud. Dist. (1997) 283 Mont. 46, 50, 938 P.2d 1335, 1338.)
“On appeal, we review a decision to bifurcate for abuse of discretion, the test for abuse of discretion being whether the trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice." (See id.)
“In State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. District Court, we determined that bifurcation was not appropriate because the issue of exemplary damages was so interwoven with proving negligence and malice or oppression that to have separate trials would lead to extended and needless litigation.” (See Henricksen v. State (2004) 319 Mont. 307, 316; State ex Rel. Fitzgerald v. Dist. Court (1985) 217 Mont. 106, 118.)
“Consequently, only if the issues are distinct is bifurcation proper under Rule 42(b), M.R.Civ.P.” (See id; Malta Public School Dist. v. 17th Jud. Dist (1997) 283 Mont. 46, 51.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
