Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00804, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00804    Hearing Date: August 2, 2024    Dept: E

Case No: 23GDCV00804
Hearing Date: 08/02/2024 – 8:30am

Trial Date: 09/03/2024

Case Name: TORANG SAROUKHANI v. ARARAT HOME OF LOS ANGELES, INC.; and DOES 1-50 inclusive

[TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE]

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Defendant, ARARAT HOME OF LOS ANGELES, INC (hereinafter "Defendant") will and does hereby move this Court for an Order bifurcating the issues of liability and punitive damages and to preclude evidence and/or reference to punitive damages and Defendant's financial condition during the liability phase of the trial.

This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§598 and 1048, and Civil Code §§3294 and 3295, on the grounds that bifurcation is in furtherance of convenience, will avoid significant prejudice to Defendant, and will promote judicial economy.

This Motion will be based on this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, any and all pleadings and records contained within the court's file, and any oral or documentary evidence presented during the hearing of this matter.”

(Def. Mot. p. 1-2.)

PROCEDURAL

Moving Party: Defendant, Ararat Home of Los Angeles, Inc.

Responding Party: No Opposition by Plaintiff

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300(c)): Ok

16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP § 1005(b)): Ok

Proper Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Uncertain – The Court will hear argument as to whether Defendant served this motion on the proper email address for Plaintiff’s counsel. On eCourt, Plaintiff’s counsel’s email address is listed as cr@mcreynoldsllp.com. Defendant did not serve moving papers on the email address listed on eCourt. Instead, Defendant served moving papers to the two email addresses of info@mcreynoldsllp.com and Elen@mcreynoldsllp.com. However, the Court notes that the header of several documents that Plaintiff filed on eCourt lists Plaintiff’s “E-Service Address” as info@mcreynoldsllp.com. For example, in the header, where Plaintiff’s counsel lists the firm address, on both the Complaint and Motion for Trial Preference, Plaintiff noted the “E-Service Address” as info@mcreynoldsllp.com; and this motion was in fact served to info@mcreynoldsllp.com. However, since eCourt lists a different email address for Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court will hear argument as to the proper service address of Plaintiff’s counsel.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Torang Saroukhani, filed a Complaint against Defendant, Ararat Home of Los Angeles, Inc. on 4/21/2023 alleging two causes of action for: (1) Elder Abuse (Pursuant to the Elder Adult and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act – Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15600, et seq.) and (2) Negligent Hiring and Supervision (CACI 426).

Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference was granted on 4/17/2024.

Trial is set for 9/3/2024.

ANALYSIS

Defendant moves for an order bifurcating the issues of liability and punitive damages and to preclude evidence and/or reference to punitive damages and Defendant’s financial condition during the liability phase of the trial.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that while Plaintiff was a 94-95 years of age resident at Defendant’s facility, Plaintiff suffered falls when Plaintiff was supposed to be under heightened medical supervision as a result of her deteriorating mental and physical health. (See Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.)

Since the Complaint seeks punitive damages, Defendant argues that before this Court allows the jury to hear any evidence of Defendant’s financial condition or worth, the jury should first make a preliminary determination whether Defendant is liable to Plaintiff at all, and if so, whether Defendant’s acts or omissions amounted to mere negligence or met the significantly higher threshold for malice, fraud, or oppression. Defendant argues that to allow otherwise would result in unfair prejudice to Defendant because a jury could be swayed toward liability in favor of Plaintiff by virtue of Defendant’s financial condition or wealth.

Defendant’s motion cited CCP §§ 598 and 1048, as well as Civil Code §§ 3294 and 3295 as its basis for bifurcation.

Since Defendant’s citation to Civil Code § 3295(d) appears to be the citation that is the most on point, the Court will focus its analysis on Civil Code § 3295(d).

As stated in Civil Code § 3295(d):

The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.

(Civil Code § 3295(d).)

As explained in Notrica v. State Compensation Ins. Fund:

The purpose behind Civil Code section 3295, which allows bifurcation and preclusion of evidence of a defendant's wealth and profits during the liability phase of trial, is to minimize prejudice prior to the jury's determination of a prima facie case of liability for punitive damages. (Torres v. Automobile Club of So. California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 771, 777–778, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 937 P.2d 290.) However, such evidence is not to be excluded on the basis of prejudice when the information is relevant to liability. (Rawnsley v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 86, 91–92, 227 Cal.Rptr. 806.) 

(Notrica v. State Compensation Ins. Fund (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 911, 939.)

“A request under section 3295, subdivision (d) is essentially a motion in limine, and ordinarily should be made before trial.” (Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1241.)

Here, Defendant argues that its financial condition has nothing to do with whether it is liable to Plaintiff for her alleged damages.

In light of the fact that no Opposition has been submitted, the Court fails to see how evidence of financial condition is relevant to liability in this case, and thus finds Defendant’s argument availing.

TENTATIVE RULING
The Court tentatively plans to GRANT Defendant’s motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and punitive damages and to preclude evidence and/or reference to punitive damages and Defendant’s financial condition during the liability phase of the trial.

However, the Defendant needs to address the service address issue that the Court previously noted in the procedural section of this tentative.