Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 19STCV46118, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV46118 Hearing Date: August 31, 2022 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Romero, et. al.
vs. Kimco Realty Corporation, et. al., Case No. 19STCV46118
Tentative Ruling
re: Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate
Defendants Kimco Realty
Corporation, Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., and Redhawk Towne Center II, LLC
(collectively, Defendants) move for an order bifurcating damages and liability issues
at trial. The motion is denied.
“The court, in furtherance of
convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials would 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)
“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
party thereof in the case . . .” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 598.) “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 jury is in favor of
the allegedly liable party, judgment in favor of that party shall be entered
and no trial of other issues in the action against that party will be had. . .”
(Ibid.) If the decision of the Court
or jury on the issue of liability is against the party allegedly liable, the
trial of the other issues shall be had before the same or another jury as
ordered by the court. (Ibid.)
Defendants have not shown that bifurcation
would promote “the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the
economy and efficiency of handling the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 598.)
While Defendants contend that bifurcation will conserve judicial resources
because “it seems apparent” that Plaintiffs will not meet their burden to show
liability, this assertion is premature at this point. Liability clearly will be
contested at trial, and so any benefit to trial efficiency from bifurcation
would be uncertain.
Defendants further argue that
bifurcation is appropriate due to the volume of evidence and expert testimony
exclusively relating to damages, though the parties disagree as to how much
time will be spent at trial on the issue of liability relative to damages. The
possibility that some resources will be saved by an early finding in favor of
Defendant on liability does not outweigh the additional measures necessary to
implement bifurcation. Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ evidence for
damages may inflame the jury on the liability issue does not show sufficient
potential for prejudice.