t is a tricky one to assert at trial in any of the majority of states recognizing a discovery rule—which commonly provides that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knew or should have known of a potential claim. Asserting the defense requires a defendant who denies liability to simultaneously argue to the jury what may seem to be contradictory positions: First, that there is no claim, but second, that the plaintiff should have known of the claim before a certain date.Enter bifurcation. Most are familiar with the concept of bifurcating compensatory liability and punitive damages. But as far back as the 1940s, courts have recognized that Rule 42 can be used to bifurcate the issues of liability and the statute of limitations. A trial solely on the issue of statute of limitations allows defendants to have a streamlined, efficient trial that avoids the seeming contradiction between defending against liability and forcefully asserting a statute of limitations defense.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)Rule 42(b) grants federal courts broad discretion to bifurcate (i.e., separate) a trial “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.”Bifurcating issues for trial is not new. In fact, courts have recognized the value of bifurcated trials for more than a century. Courts may bifurcate the liability phase of trial from the damages phase of trial. Some courts are also inclined to bifurcate the jury’s determination of compensatory damages from that of punitive damages. Rule 42(b) “is sweeping in its terms and allows the district court, in its discretion, to grant a separate trial of any kind of issue in any kind of case.” Bifurcating affirmative defenses—including the statute of limitations defense—is thus clearly within district courts’ authority.Because the statute of limitations can be dispositive of all claims in a case, if a jury ultimately finds that the plaintiff’s claims are untimely, then there is no need for a long, expensive trial on issues of liability an

1999) (Bonneville)). With respect to the co-pending litigation here, however, although the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York ordered that the voluntary dismissal of Dynamic I was without prejudice, the Court did so as part of a consolidation of Dynamic I and Dynamic II pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. Prelim.

On March 27, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Hall v. Hall, Case No. 16-1150, holding that cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) remain independent for purposes of determining whether a judgment is final and appealable. The case arose from a familial dispute over the management of Ethlyn Hall’s real estate holdings in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

On March 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Hall v. Hall, No. 16-1150, holding that when one of several cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is finally decided, that decision confers upon the losing party the immediate right to appeal, regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases remain pending. After a falling out with her son, Ethlyn Hall transferred her property to a trust and named her daughter, Elsa Hall, as her successor trustee.

ator to make such determinations, as well as to work with the parties to develop an efficient process for the resolution of claims. The cases, likely consolidated or grouped in certain respects and/or for certain purposes, will then be heard by separately-appointed arbitrators.Finally, mass arbitration under the procedures is not class arbitration, and these procedures are not class action procedures by another name. The process administrator’s role is perhaps best understood as a process of step-by-step problem-solving, not a process whereby complex legal issues such as the requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), or the arbitration analogue, have been met. (It is, of course, well understood that class certification and consolidation serve different purposes and are based on different standards.) In any case—and although it is probably best not to rely on analogies to court procedures in the far less formal arbitration space, the better analogy is to FRCP Rule 42(b): The process administrator has broad discretion, after hearing the from the parties, to fashion a plan for the cases that will promote efficiency, while avoiding prejudice.

The justices, therefore, denied Samuel’s advances that would prohibit Elsa from immediately appealing the trust case.Moving Litigation Forward This ruling, while seemingly complicating the litigation process, exists to avoid unnecessary costs or delays associated with prolonged legal proceedings. Moving litigation forward in an effective and accurate manner is one of the main pillars of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(b), which states that separate trials may be conducted for convenience – but also to avoid prejudice and to expedite the process.For these reasons, the court rejected Samuel’s advances to prevent the appeal, claiming it would put lawyers at risk of waiting years to proceed with the appeal process. A possible deferment like this could cause piecemeal litigation and prevent proceedings from effectively moving forward.

138 S. Ct. 1118 (2018). In a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that civil cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) retain their separate identities, so that a final decision in one case is immediately appealable by the losing party, even if other cases in the consolidated proceeding remain pending. The holding resolves a four-way split among the courts of appeals and provides clear guidance to civil litigants about when they must appeal.Background The case arises from a long-running family dispute.

Samuel later filed suit against his sister in her individual capacity. Samuel moved for consolidation of the cases, which the District Court granted under FRCP 42(a). The jury first returned a verdict for Samuel in the individual case, but the District Court granted Elsa’s request for a new trial.

The Supreme Court recently held that when related cases have been consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a final decision in one of the cases makes that individual case immediately appealable by the losing party, even if the other case remains pending. In this particular case, a family dispute gave rise to two separate lawsuits, which the trial court consolidated.

The decision, though technical, resolves an issue that has vexed lower courts and litigants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) gives the district courts broad discretion to consolidate different actions involving “common questions of law or fact.”Hall involved cases consolidated in the Federal District Court in the Virgin Islands, relating to an inter-family dispute between siblings about rents collected for a vacation home. At trial, the jury ruled against the daughter in both cases, awarding the son $2million in damages, but entering separate judgments.