Martucci v. P&A Transportations, Inc., 6:12-cv-00402

Plaintiff Jodie Martucci sues P&A Transportations, Inc. and Jose Luis Couto Olivares for Daniel Martucci's death in a motor vehicle accident.
Defendants move to bifurcate liability and damages at trial to avoid prejudice and conserve judicial resources.
Rule 42(b) permits separate trials for separable issues, but is not routinely ordered.
Court considers three bifurcation factors: judicial economy/resources, issue separability, and fairness.
Court may impose proper jury instructions to mitigate sympathy, preserving the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial.
Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Liability and Damages at Trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether bifurcating liability and damages is appropriate.	Martucci argues against bifurcation to avoid delay and preserve a single trial.	Olivares/Defendants argue bifurcation promotes economy and minimizes prejudice.	Denied

Angelo v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 11 F.3d 957 (11th Cir. 1993) (considerations for bifurcation and separability of issues)
Belisle v. BNSF Ry. Co., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2010) (court recognizes economy and fairness in bifurcation analysis)
ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Biamp Systems, 653 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2011) (jury instructions can mitigate prejudice in bifurcation)
North American Specialty Insurance Company v. Britt Paulk Insurance th Agency, Incorporated, 579 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2009) (jury follows instructions; prejudice can be controlled)
Martin v. Bell Helicopter Co., 85 F.R.D. 654 (D. Colo. 1980) (economy considerations yield to fair trial)