The defendant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that bifurcated the trial into liability and damages phases.
The moving party argued that the bifurcation order conflicted with appellate jurisprudence, specifically the rule that a trial cannot be bifurcated without consent when a valid jury notice is in place.
The court found that there was a conflicting decision and good reason to doubt the correctness of the bifurcation order, satisfying the test for leave to appeal.
The motion for leave to appeal was granted.
