Free Order on Motion to Bifurcate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I !
Case 3:00-cv—OO681-RNC Document 115 Filed O2/26/2004 Page 1 of 1 I1
I é/ i a*·*· ‘ 1
I . .1 . 3:1 I
1 UEc jg} ·- I
, Z 16 riii ’g2 . I
U‘S· D.’.$;*,`Ii?i‘1Ir§Il?i -; ,., ..
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COW IC IIHJI, Ig]; jI~é,·’lI I
DISTRICT OF CONNEC ' ‘
I I
NORMA WATTS, In her Individual : CIVIL ACTION NO.
Capacity and as Administratrix of : 3:00CV0681 (DJS)
the Estate of AQUAN SALMON : ,
v. E
CITY OF HARTFORD; ET AL. DECEMBER 16, 2002
. I
MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE ISSUE OF PUNITIME DAMAGES I
Pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned
defendant, Robert C. Allan, respectfully requests this Court to bifurcate the issue of 1
punitive damages from the plaintiffs claims for compensatory damages.
The decision to bifurcate is firmly within the discretion of the trial judge. In Re
I
Master Key Antitrust Litigation, 528 F .2d 5, 14 (2d Cir. 1975). In determining whether I
bifurcation is proper, the Court must weigh the issues of convenience, judicial economy 1
and the possible prejudicial effects to the parties, Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). I
\ February 25, 2004. Norma Watts v. City of Hartfgrd et al.; 3 : OOCV0681 (RNC) I
I
Re: Motion to Bifurcate Issue of Punitive Damages [Doc. it 79}
Granted. Absent objection, the issue of the amount of punitive damages shall 1
be bifurcated from the liability and compensatory damages phase ,c> the case.
See Simpson v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. , 901 F.2d 277, 283__·.(2d Qir. ) ,__·Hcert.
dgmissed, 497 U. S. 1057 (1990) (expressing preference f§gj;;..§bi§uroa‘t_ibn of
issue of amount of punitive damages) . So Ordered. // .I,‘. Q IT r I
‘ <;‘T»§ .2 t
1 . . I
\ Roiigrt Ni Chatigny, UZS . 3- J§j.j_E`.iZj ,_ _. Q}
Ely; G··<· ?.1Z.iTZZZ'1ZH?'5B1‘·Ir & SAGE I..I.r l.?$."iI°.'T’4E“0.-Z’°°° I
_.I
,].,%:17 TT?"“"?*i“"i*?‘*‘**it""*»i.*;t ······` or I T - an .-i- FIASJLIQYIiZ.`T.TZIf1i.’.i‘§
,f.;eT ff TT"“‘t‘?’*t’r‘*"**it”tr”i·;i ··‘···‘ if _ T I Y