Motion for Separate Trials in Texas

What Is a Motion for Separate Trials?

Background

The court “may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues.” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 174(b); Van Dyke v. Boswell, O’Toole, Davis & Pickering, 697 S.W.2d 381, 384 [Tex. 1985].)

An order for separate trials leaves the lawsuit intact but enables the court to hear and determine one or more issues without trying all controverted issues at the same hearing.(In re Travelers Lloyds of Tex. Ins. Co., 273 S.W.3d 368, 373 [Tex. App. 2008].) The purpose of a motion for separate trials between parties or on issues is to avoid prejudice, further convenience, and promote the ends of justice. (In re Ethyl Corp., 975 S.W.2d 606, 610 [Tex. 1998]; Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677, 683 [Tex. 1956].)

How to Structure the Motion

“Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 41.) For severance to be proper, the following elements are necessary:

The controversy must involve more than one cause of action;
The severed cause must be one that would be the proper subject of a lawsuit if independently served; and
The severed causes must not be so intertwined as to involve the identical facts and issues.

(F.F.P. Oper. Partners V. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680, 693 [Tex. 2007].)

It is the movant’s burden to prove that it will be prejudiced by the continuation of each claim together in a single lawsuit and to provide a “compelling circumstance” detailing why severance would be necessary. (Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. Cooper, 916 S.W.2d 698, 702 [Tex. App. 1996].)

Response

Although Rule 174(b) gives the court the power to conduct bifurcated trials, courts generally should not try cases piecemeal. (Trans. Ins. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 30 [Tex. 1994].) Courts disfavor piecemeal trials. (Iley v. Hughes, 311 S.W.2d 648, 651 [Tex. 1958]; Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 30 [Tex. 1994].) The public interest, the interests of litigants, and the administration of justice are better served by avoiding a multiplicity of suits. (Iley v. Hughes, 311 S.W.2d 648, 651 [Tex. 1958].)

The Court’s Decision

Bifurcation and separate trials are proper where resolution of predicate issues or claims could be dispositive of the other claims asserted. (Berg v. Wilson, 353 S.W.3d 166, 174-75 [Tex. App. 2011].)

Rule 174(b) grants the trial court broad discretion in the matter of consolidation and severance of causes. (Houston Citizens Bank & Trust, 580 S.W.2d 29, 33 [Tex. App. 1979].) The action of the trial court will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677, 683 [Tex. 1956]; In Re Republic Lloyds, 104 S.W.3d 354, 358 [Tex. App. 2003].)

Although the trial court has broad discretion in determining whether or not to sever causes of action, “[w]hen all the facts and circumstances of the case unquestionably require a separate trial to prevent manifest injustice, and there is no fact or circumstance supporting or tending to support a contrary conclusion, and the legal rights of the parties will not be prejudiced thereby, there is no room for the exercise of discretion.” (United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Millard, 847 S.W.2d 668, 671 [Tex. App. 1993].) “The rule then is peremptory in operation and imposes upon the court a duty to order a separate trial.” (Id. at 671-72.)

Documents for Motion for Separate Trials in Texas

Sort By

MARKITA MCGLOSTER vs. ALYSHA SHIELDS, et al document preview

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE - Motion - Consolidate

3 pages

FILED 1/31/2024 3:03 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK …