993, 998 (9th Cir.2001), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 272 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.2001). “One favored purpose of bifurcation is to ... [avoid] a difficult question by first dealing with an easier, dispositive issue.” Danjaq L.L.C. v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1261 (9th Cir.1982)). In Jinro America Inc., the district court bifurcated a matter to make “an initial determination ... [of] whether the parties had entered into a valid agreement and, if so, what that agreement entailed.” 266 F.3d at 998. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court “did not abuse its discretion in ordering the trial bifurcated.” Id. (reversing and remanding on other grounds). It noted that t ps of Engineers, 883 F.Supp.2d 627, 633 (S.D.W.Va.2012) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 716 F.3d 119 (4th Cir.2013); Vehicle
holding portions of summary judgment motion in abeyance pending an evidentiary hearing holding summary judgment motions in abeyance for possible 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 holding evidentiary hearing on defense of judicial estoppel after parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment holding crossmotions for summary judgment in abeyance conducting a fourday evidentiary hearing and then disposing of the motions