Bulgari v. Bulgari, 1:22-cv-05072

Ilaria Bulgari (plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant) requested a separate trial for her claims, arguing they were trial-ready and distinct from Veronica Bulgari’s counterclaims.
Veronica Bulgari (defendant and counterclaim-plaintiff) opposed bifurcation and sought to strike Ilaria’s jury demand, arguing both legal and factual overlap and eligibility issues for a jury trial.
The case centers on allegations of breach of fiduciary duty in the administration and distribution of family trust assets.
Discovery for Ilaria’s claims is complete; fact discovery on Veronica’s counterclaims will close June 2025, with summary judgment motions expected.
Both parties' claims are intertwined, involving similar facts, legal issues, and witnesses, primarily concerning the trust’s administration and asset management.
A third-party defendant, Jan Boyer, has requested a jury trial but has not yet answered the claims against him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should the trial be bifurcated/separated?	Claims are trial-ready, distinct from counterclaims, and delay is prejudicial; bifurcation would serve efficiency and fairness.	Claims and counterclaims are factually and legally intertwined; bifurcation would cause duplicative proceedings.	Denied—claims are too intertwined; bifurcation would not serve judicial economy, would duplicate effort.
Should Ilaria’s jury demand be struck?	She has substantial voluntary U.S. connections and seeks legal remedies (damages), thus entitled to a jury trial.	Ilaria, as a non-citizen, lacks connections for 7th Amendment protection; claims sound in equity not law.	Denied w/o prejudice—decision deferred until summary judgment clarifies which claims/parties remain.

Ambac Inc., 106 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 1996) (sets standard for granting separate trials under Rule 42(b))
Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1989) (discusses right to jury trial under the Seventh Amendment)