have played (and did play) a key role in that decision, making Riverboat liable for retaliatory discharge. Similarly, Showboat could be held liable as an “owner” of the vessel absent a finding that the “individual[s] in charge of [the] vessel” retaliated against the plaintiffs. § 13(a), 98 Stat. at 2863. Because the issues raised by Showboat’s claim against Riverboat and those raised by the plaintiffs’ claims against Riverboat are easily separable for analysis, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the severance would simplify the proceedings. In short, while the overall financial exposure of Riverboat or Showboat will be affected by the final outcome of both actions, the claims in each action are clearly independent of each other. See Rice, 209 F.3d at 1016 (<HOLDING>). The validity of the claims before us does not
holding the indemnification claims to be severable under rule 21 from the primary liability inquiry holding that where there has been no settlement or judgment of liability regarding the underlying claim any imposition of liability is not so immediate as to warrant declaratory relief on the issue of indemnification holding that because they are distinct and separate it had broad discretion  under rule 21 to sever the plaintiffs claims against riverboat from what remained of the plaintiffs claims against showboat holding that fouryear limitation period on indemnification claim does not commence until the party seeking indemnification has paid a judgment or has made a voluntary payment of its legal liability to an injured party recognizing propriety of district court severing claims under rule 21 and then transferring them under  1404a