JOYCE MCKIVER; DELOIS LEWIS; DAPHNE MCKOY; ALEXANDRIA MCKOY; ANTONIO KEVIN MCKOY; ARCHIE WRIGHT, JR.; TAMMY LLOYD; DEBORAH JOHNSON; ETHEL DAVIS; PRISCILLA DUNHAM, Plaintiffs - Appellees, and DENNIS MCKIVER, JR.; LAJUNE JESSUP; DON LLOYD, Administrator of the Estate of Fred Lloyd; TERESA LLOYD; TANECHIA LLOYD; CARL LEWIS; ANNETTE MCKIVER; KAREN MCKIVER; BRIONNA MCKIVER; EDWARD OWENS; DAISY LLOYD; A. (DAUGHTER); A. (SON), Plaintiffs, v. MURPHY-BROWN, LLC, d/b/a Smithfield Hog Production Division, Defendant — Appellant.AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL; NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; NORTH CAROLINA PORK COUNCIL; NORTH AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; NATIONAL TURKEY FEDERATION; NATIONAL CHICKEN COUNCIL; JOEY D. CARTER; JOEY CARTER FARMS; WILLIAM R. KINLAW; KINLAW FARMS, LLC; PAUL STANLEY; PAGLE CORP.; GREENWOOD LIVESTOCK, LLC, Amici Supporting Appellant. LAW PROFESSORS WITH EXPERTISE IN TORT AND REGULATORY LAW; AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE; NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER; HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES; PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.; FOOD & WATER WATCH; WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC.; NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK; RURAL EMPOWERMENT ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY HELP; DR. LAWRENCE CAHOON; ELIZABETH CHRISTENSON; DR. BRETT DOHERTY; MIKE DOLAN FLISS; DR. JILL JOHNSTON; BOB MARTIN; DR. SARAH RHODES; DR. ANA MARIA RULE; DR. SACOBY WILSON; DR. COURTNEY WOODS, Amici Supporting Appellee., 980 F.3d 937
Summary
HOLDINGS: [1]-Where a commercial hog producer contracted with third-party grower to operate an industrial hog feeding facility, and where the neighbors sued the producer under state nuisance law due to odors, pests, and noises they attributed to farming practices, although district court properly admitted financial evidence of the producer's parent company regarding liability, it erred in failing to bifurcate the trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 as to punitive damages; [2]-While the parent company's financial information was properly admitted for the issue of liability, this evidence was irrelevant with respect to the amount of punitive damages, and as there was no limiting instruction as to how the parent company's financial information was to be applied in the punitive damages analysis, bifurcation was warranted to prevent any undue prejudice associated with such financial evidence.