Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC709831, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC709831    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Fadi Ellahib, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Hatoum Ellahib, filed this action against defendants Erik James Wanland (“Wanland”), the State of California, and the Islamic Center of Claremont (“the Center”) for damages arising out of an automobile accident vs. pedestrian accident. 

The Center now moves to bifurcate the trial on all issues of liability and Plaintiff’s damages.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and the Center filed a reply.  Wanland filed a memorandum in support of the motion. 

As an initial matter, the Center’s unopposed ex parte application for an order extending the deadline to hear a motion to bifurcate filed on November 21, 2022, is granted. 

The Center’s motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice to the Center raising this issue for the trial judge to consider, on its own motion, at the time that the judge rules upon motions in limine.  The Court orders that the bifurcation briefing be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed in the case.  The court recognizes that CRC Rule 3.57(c) states, “A motion in limine may not be used for the purpose of seeking an order to try an issue before the trial of another issue or issues,” and thus this order should not be construed in a way that contradicts this rule.  The Center may direct the trial court to this order, which should not be construed to in any way bind the trial court in making a bifurcation decision on its own motion.

The Center properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date.  (See CCP § 598.)  However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.”  (Id.)

On the facts of this case, and given that in the Personal Injury Court system this case will be tried by a different court than the Court ruling on this motion, the Court finds it appropriate for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted.  In the PI Court system, the trial court rules on motions in limine, even those that significantly affect trial preparation.  While this bifurcation request is not a motion in limine, the logic of having the trial judge determine it here is similar.  The request for bifurcation here appears to be one for which the trial judge should make a discretionary determination based on its experience.

Accordingly, the Center’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 14^th day of December 2022