bifurcation “approach was a reasonable way to promote clarity and judicial economy, because the validity of the contract directly informed the resolution of the other claims.” Id. Here, similar to the district court’s decision in Jinro, the court determined that it would promote clarity and judicial economy to first determine whether an agreement between Neis and Frances was valid and whether Neis performed on it. As in Jinro, the contract’s validity — and Nels’s performance — bears immediately upon- the remaining claims. B. The Court May Hold a Motion for Summary Judgment in Abeyance The court may hold a summary judgment motion in abeyance, even pending an evidentiary hearing. This practice has long been a common one. See, e.g., Davis v. Grimes, 64 F.Supp.3d 268, 270-71 (D.Mass.2014) (<HOLDING>); Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal., Inc. v. U.S. Army
holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by courts review of documents submitted by parties holding crossmotions for summary judgment in abeyance conducting a fourday evidentiary hearing and then disposing of the motions holding summary judgment motions in abeyance for possible evidentiary hearing holding portions of summary judgment motion in abeyance pending an evidentiary hearing holding that the trial court grants or denies motions for summary judgment on the basis of what is contained in the motions for summary judgment and the responses thereto