above, Case 1 and Case 2 have already been resolved. Further, Arro-wood does not demonstrate prejudice, nor does Arrowood prove that multiple trials would serve the interests of convenience or judicial economy. Arrowood’s arguments about bifurcation under Kentucky law do not apply here. Arrowood states that “well-established Kentucky ease law ... provides that this Court should separate the ‘suit within the suit’ jury trials on the [underlying Ellis Claims [Case 1], the legal malpractice negligence jury trials as to, liability [Case 2], if any, and the UCSPA [b]ad [fjaith [cjlaims [Case 3].” R. 141-1 at 10. But this Court must apply federal law, which governs the applicable standard for bifurcation in diversity actions. See In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 316 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Jahic, No.
holding that state law provides the standard of review for a denial of a rule 50 motion in a diversity case holding that trialcourt carefully made the necessary inquiry into rule 42b when making trifurcation decision in diversity case recognizing strictness of maryland rule in a diversity case holding that state substantive rules of decision apply in federal diversity cases holding that in order for a defendant to remove a case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction there must be complete diversity of citizenship both at the time that the case is commenced and at the time that the notice of removal is filed