Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial in Virginia

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

“Code § 8.01-281(A) reinforces the broad scope of joinder in Virginia: a party ... may plead alternative facts and theories of recovery ... provided that such claims ... arise of out of the same transaction or occurrence." (See Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC (2017) 795 S.E.2d 887, 895.)

“Subsection B acknowledges the trial court's discretion to conduct separate evidentiary hearings if doing so is more prudent or efficient.” (See id; See Code § 8.01-281(B).)

“The authority to sever recognizes that, particularly with alternative claims, resolving one claim might moot all the others.” (See id.)

“Equally so, the different evidentiary requirements of each claim that could potentially prejudice a party regarding another claim could provide a sound basis for a trial court to exercise its authority to sever the claims under Code § 8.01-281(B).” (See id.)

“If the trial court finds that a joint trial would constitute prejudice to a defendant, the court shall order severance as to that defendant or provide such other relief justice requires.” (See Allen v. Commonwealth (2011) 58 Va. App. 618, 622.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

Virginia Code subsection 8.01-267.6 governs separate trials and special interrogatories.

The rule states that, “in any combined action under this chapter, the court, on motion of any party, may order separate or bifurcated trials of any one or more claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or separate issues, always preserving the right of trial by jury.” (See Va. Code § 8.01-267.6.)

“Additionally, the court may submit special interrogatories to the jury to resolve specific issues of fact.” (See id.)

“Furthermore, pursuant to Section 8.01-281 of the Virginia Court Rules, the court may, upon motion of any party, order a separate trial of any claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, and of any separate issue or of any number of such claims…” (See Va. Code § 8.01-281(B).)

“[H]owever, in any action wherein a defendant files a third-party motion for judgment alleging that damages to the person or property of the plaintiff were caused by the negligence of the third-party defendant in the operation of a motor vehicle, the court shall, upon motion of the plaintiff made at least five days in advance of trial, order a separate trial of such third-party claim.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

“Trial courts have the inherent authority to consolidate claims for trial and have been given specific authority to order separate trials in certain circumstances.” (See Emerald Point, LLC v. Hawkins (2017) 294 Va. 544, 560-61.)

Pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-272, “the court, in its discretion, may order a separate trial for any claim.” (See Va. Code § 8.01-272.)

“A decision to order separate trials or to consolidate claims for a single trial is a matter of procedure, left to the trial court's discretion.” (See Emerald Point, LLC v. Hawkins (2017) 294 Va. 544, 560-61.)

“In making this decision, a trial court must be cautious to insure that separating or consolidating claims for trial does not prejudice the substantial rights of any party.” (See id.)

“When considering a request for separate trials, the trial court must also consider any resulting unnecessary delay, expense, or use of judicial resources that would flow from separate trials of the claims at issue.” (See id.)

“In reviewing the trial court's ruling regarding consolidation or separation of trials, we will not alter the ruling unless the trial court plainly abused its discretion.” (See id; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wade (2003) 265 Va. 383, 392, 579 S.E.2d 180, 185.)

“A trial court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” (See Griffin v. Griffin, Record No. 1791-11-4, at *5 (Va. Ct. App. May 29, 2012); Shooltz v. Shooltz (1998) 27 Va. App. 264, 271, 498 S.E.2d 437, 441.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

It is well settled that “a trial court has the discretion to order a separate trial of any claim to attain the ends of justice.” (See Code § 8.01-272; Fox v. Deese (1987) 234 Va. 412, 423.)

As such, it is also well settled that “[i]n determining whether to sever the cases for trial, the trial court should make the determination based upon the situation as it appears before trial.” (See Berton v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1388-12-4, at *5 n.4 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2013).)