Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: EC068240, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: EC068240, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: EC068240 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: E

Case No: EC068240
Hearing Date: 1/9/2025

Trial Date: 1/21/2025

Case Name: PAMELA AZAR, an individual; TIFFANY BUILDERS LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company; EDWART DER ROSTAMIAN, an individual v. DAVID DELRAHIM, an individual; BLUE VISTA PARTNERS, a California Limited Liability Company; and Does 1-50

[TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE]

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Defendants DAVID DELRAHIM and BLUE VISTA PARTNERS LLC (collectively “Defendants”) will and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 597, 598, and 1048(b), for an order bifurcating trial of the equitable claims and special defenses from trial of the legal claims, with a corresponding order that said equitable matters be tried before a Jury is impaneled to hear the legal issues, including without limitation as to the following matters:

1. On Plaintiffs TIFFANY BUILDERS LLC and EDWART DER ROSTAMIAN’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Complaint, Plaintiffs’ causes action for specific performance and unfair business practices which are equitable in nature and should be tried as a bench trial, before the only remaining legal cause of action for breach of contract is tried as a jury trial.

2. As to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and that legal breach of contract action, Defendants’ special affirmative defenses of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, and Lack of Standing, special defenses and preliminary matters which should be tried as a bench trial before the remaining cause of action for breach of contract is tried with a jury.”

(Def. Mot. p. 2.)

PROCEDURAL

Moving Party: Defendants, David Delrahim and Blue Vista Partners LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiffs, Tiffany Builders LLC and Edwart Der Rostamian

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Request for Judicial Notice; Scott E. Shapiro Declaration

Opposition Papers: Opposition

Reply Papers: 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): Ok

LEGAL STANDARD – BIFURCATION
Trial courts have wide discretion in deciding the sequence of issues for trial. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048; Evid. Code, § 320; Grappo v. Coventry Fin. Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504 [“trial courts have broad discretion to determine the order of proof in the interests of judicial economy”].)

CCP § 597 states:

When the answer pleads that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, or by a prior judgment, or that another action is pending upon the same cause of action, or sets up any other defense not involving the merits of the plaintiff’s cause of action but constituting a bar or ground of abatement to the prosecution thereof, the court may, either upon its own motion or upon the motion of any party, proceed to the trial of the special defense or defenses before the trial of any other issue in the case, and if the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury, upon any special defense so tried (other than the defense of another action pending) is in favor of the defendant pleading the same, judgment for the defendant shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action shall be had unless that judgment shall be reversed on appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated; and where the defense of another action pending or a demurrer based upon subdivision (c) of Section 430.10 is sustained (and no other special defense is sustained) an interlocutory judgment shall be entered in favor of the defendant pleading the same to the effect that no trial of other issues shall be had until the final determination of that other action, and the plaintiff may appeal from the interlocutory judgment in the same manner and within the same time as is now or may be hereafter provided by law for appeals from judgments. If the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury, upon the special defense or defenses so tried is in favor of the plaintiff, trial of the other issues shall thereafter be had either upon the court’s own motion or upon the motion of any party, and judgment shall be entered thereon in the same manner and with the same effect as if all the issues in the case had been tried at one time. In such an event any and all decisions or verdicts upon the special defense or defenses, and all rulings on the trial thereof shall be deemed excepted to and may be reviewed on motion for a new trial or upon appeal from the judgment.

This section also applies to the trial of special defenses pleaded in an answer to a cross-complaint or a demurrer based upon subdivision (c) of Section 430.10, and if the decision of the court or the verdict of the jury upon the special defense or defenses is in favor of the cross-defendant, no further trial shall be had upon the issues raised by the cross-complaint, but trial of the other issues in the action shall thereafter be had either upon the court’s own motion or upon the motion of any party, and after the trial thereof the judgment shall be entered in the action as is justified by the decision or verdict on such other issues, considered in connection with the decision or verdict upon the trial of such an affirmative defense raised in the answer to the cross-complaint.

(CCP § 597.)

C.C.P. §598 provides as follows:

The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5. The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time. Where trial of the issue of liability as to all causes of action precedes the trial of other issues or parts thereof, and the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury upon such issue so tried is in favor of any party on whom liability is sought to be imposed, judgment in favor of such party shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action as against such party shall be had unless such judgment shall be reversed upon appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated. If the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury upon the issue of liability so tried shall be against any party on whom liability is sought to be imposed, or if the decision of the court or the verdict of the jury upon any other issue or part thereof so tried does not result in a judgment being entered pursuant to this chapter, then the trial of the other issues or parts thereof shall thereafter be had at such time, and if a jury trial, before the same or another jury, as ordered by the court either upon its own motion or upon the motion of any party, and judgment shall be entered in the same manner and with the same effect as if all the issues in the case had been tried at one time.

(CCP §598.)

C.C.P. §1048(b) provides, as follows, “ The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.

“The major objective of bifurcated trials is to expedite and simplify the presentation of evidence.” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888.)

Bifurcation frequently occurs when the determination of one issue, such as an affirmative defense, renders other issues moot. (See, e.g., Buran Equipment v. H& C Investment Co. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 338, 343-344.) Trial courts also often bifurcate equitable and legal issues, resolving the issues of equity first in order to promote judicial economy. (Darbun Enters, Inc. v. San Fernando Community Hosp. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 399, 408-409.)

TENTATIVE RULING
The first basis for bifurcation that Defendants seek are for the specific performance and unfair business practices claim to be tried as a bench trial before the only remaining cause of action (breach of contract) is tried to a jury.

Here, the Court denies this basis for bifurcation in light of Plaintiffs’ notice of withdrawal filed on 12/27/2024 that withdrew the specific performance and unfair business practices claim.

As to the second basis for bifurcation, Defendants argue that their special defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and lack of standing should be tried as a bench trial before the remaining cause of action for breach of contract is tried with a jury.

Defendants argue that: (1) the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel are special defenses which are mixed questions of fact and law to be decided by the Court, and not by a jury, and should be determined first under CCP § 597; (2) lack of standing is a jurisdictional issue which must be decided by the Court before any of Plaintiffs’ claims should be heard, whether equitable or legal in nature; (3) it is within the Court’s discretion to bifurcate and try separately equitable claims and special defenses before legal issues are tried before a jury; (4) trying equitable claims and special defenses before legal claims promotes judicial economy by potentially obviating the need for a jury trial on the legal issues if the equitable issues are dispositive; and (5) it is within the Court’s discretion to bifurcate and try separately such issues to avoid undue prejudice.

The Court will hear argument.

Defendants’ explanation as to why/how Plaintiffs lack standing and why/how res judicata and collateral estoppel are applicable are somewhat unclear, in the Court’s view.

Despite this case being over six years old, Defendants appear to assume that the Court knows what Defendants are talking about when they refer to other actions not before this Court and various judgments and arbitration proceedings.

Further, Defendants make conclusions about certain things that have allegedly already been tried or are barred, with little to no context, background, or specific reference to proof.

As to the issue of whether or not standing is for the jury or if it can be heard as a bench trial, Defendants provide no case law addressing standing and whether it can be heard as a bench trial, or should be heard as a bench trial.

As to res judicata and collateral estoppel, Defendants appear to be correct that this Court could bifurcate those issues. However, the Court will hear from the parties as to if that is appropriate here since Defendants arguments are unclear with respect to providing the necessary context to understand what Defendants are saying.

“The rule that the facts underlying the applicability of the res judicata defense are tried to the court, and not to a jury, although it is a legal and not an equitable defense, is well settled. One reason that such factual issues are tried to the court seems apparent. The issues are often mixed fact-law determinations, involving, for instance, the assertion of jurisdiction, a decision better made by the court alone.” (Windsor Square Homeowners Assn. v. Citation Homes (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 547, 557.)

In Opposition, Plaintiffs argue:

Defendants’ request to bifurcate and try the equitable or special defenses first is judicially uneconomical. This matter will proceed as a simple breach of contract claim with a trial estimate of five days (including voir dire). Having two separate trials involving many of the same exhibits and documents would be uneconomical. Otherwise, every simple breach of contract case would be bifurcated to have equitable defenses tried first. Furthermore, the scope of the assignment to which Defendants refer in the moving papers is in dispute. Defendants contend it was an all-encompassing assignment. Plaintiffs contend it was a limited assignment intended for third-party Carol International to get back its earnest money deposit. This is an issue of fact to be resolved by a jury.

(Pl. Oppo. p. 1-2.)

As seen from Plaintiffs’ argument, not only do Plaintiffs fail to provide any context for their arguments, but they also fail to cite any legal authority.

Defendants’ Reply is unhelpful in the same way as Defendants’ moving papers were in the sense that Defendants provide no context and many times assert conclusions that the Court does not follow. Further, the Reply reaffirms the position that California cases express a preference that the equitable issues be tried first. (Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2020) 9 Cal.5th 279, 317.)

The Court to hear argument.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice granted.