May 11, 2017
It would seem that your argument is that bifurcation would prejudice your client and it would not promote judicial economy. After the trial in the underlying action, the co-defendant is going to attempt to use the verdict as res judicata against your client. Your client would be prejudiced if it is bound by the underlying judgment because it was not a party at trial and if they co-defendant knows that your client will be paying the bill, it does not have a strong interest in fully defending the case. You will want to research that topic (issue/claim preclusion against indemnitors) as you may be bound as a “party identified with” the defendant under case law and Rest. (II) Judgments Section 68.1. If your client is not bound by the judgment, then court will be forced to retry the issue with all of the same parties and all of the same evidence, while attempting to protect the record from any reference to the prior proceeding/judgment.
I don’t know that you’re going to find anything specifically on point in reviewing cases to sever under Rule 1.914. However, I think, in resisting the motion to bifurcate, you could be citing general principles cited in the case law talking about fairness, judicial economy, etc., and how it would not be a good use of scarce (particularly right now with the budget shortage!) judicial resources to try two cases when they could be combined into one trial and all issues handled in that trial. The IA Supreme Ct case of Villarreal v. United Fire & Cas Co (decided in 2016) addresses bifurcation and you could use that to make arguments about why bifurcation is NOT appropriate here (how there is no prejudice in keeping the cases tied together, it would be more convenient, etc.) The Villarreal case also observes that Rule 1.914’s wording is similar to Fed R Civ P 42(b), so you may try researching any applicable cases under that rule.
My client is a third-party defendant due to an indemnity agreement. We requested a jury trial after all other parties had already waived the jury trial. We had to file a motion to continue the trial because there would be no jurors available for the current trial date set. The original plaintiff is resisting the motion to continue and has made a motion to bifurcate the trial and remove us as a party until the under lying action has been decided. I have been asked to draft up a reply brief to their resistance and motion for bifurcation but I can’t seem to find case law on the topic of bifurcation of a third party indemnification defendant under Iowa R. Civ. Pro. 1.914.
Any advice pointing me in the right direction or some kind of starting point would be very much appreciated. Thank you for having this service.
AskAnAdvocate is an anonymous listserv allowing Young Lawyers the ability to email inquiries anonymously and receive feedback. The list is moderated by ISBA staff and all Inquiries and responses are only shared after identifying information has been removed. To send an anonymous inquiry or response please send an email to AskAnAdvocate@iabar.org. View listserv guidelines here. |
To unsubscribe from this list, send a mail message to "unsubscribe@iabar.org" with the following in the subject and the first line in the body of the message:
unsubscribe aaa