Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 22STCV02810, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02810    Hearing Date: May 7, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce Iwasaki 

Department 58 

Hearing Date:              May 7, 2024

Case Name:                 Lopez v. Fell, et al.

Case No.:                    22STCV02810                   

Motion:                       Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party:             Defendants Cliff Fell and Califa Catering, LLC

Tentative Ruling:  The motion to bifurcate is denied.

This is an action for employment and disability discrimination and harassment. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges that Plaintiff Robert Lopez (Plaintiff0 worked for Defendants Califa Catering LLC and Cliff Fell, who assigned Plaintiff to a position catering for Defendant Natural Hair Productions. (FAC ¶¶ 25–37.) Plaintiff was terminated days after seeking leave for an MRI appointment related to a hand injury. (FAC ¶¶ 41–45.)

Trial in this matter is set for July 29, 2024. Defendants Califa and Fell filed the present motion to bifurcate on August 15, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 19, 2023. Defendants filed a reply on April 30, 2024.

Legal Standard

“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 . . . or of any separate issue . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).) Additionally, “[t]he 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 . . . 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 . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)

“It is within the discretion of the court to bifurcate issues or order separate trials of actions, such as for breach of contract and bad faith, and to determine the order in which those issues are to be decided.” (Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 193, 205.) “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.)

Defendants Café Califa and Cliff Fell (Defendants) seek to bifurcate trial into a first phase to determine Defendants’ liability — whether they discriminated or retaliated against Plaintiff Robert Lopez (Plaintiff) — and a second phase to determine Plaintiff’s damages. (Motion at p. 1.) Defendants argue that such an order would promote efficiency by potentially eliminating the need for a damages phase. (Motion at p. 2.)

No bifurcation is warranted, as Defendants’ case for efficiency depends entirely upon a verdict in the liability phase of trial in their favor. Without such a verdict, bifurcation is likely to substantially increase the burden of trial upon all parties, the court, and the jury. If liability is found, the jury would be required to hear additional testimony, a second round of closing arguments, additional jury instructions, and a second round of jury deliberations. Thus bifurcation here risks more inefficiency than Defendants propose to reduce.

Defendants argue that Defendant Natural Hair Productions was only added as a defendant with Plaintiff’s filing of the FAC on April 8, 2024, and that because this Defendant has not appeared, ruling on the present motion should be continued to allow input from this new defendant. (Reply at p. 3.) But Defendant does not articulate how the introduction of this new defendant favors bifurcation. Based on the showing made in this motion, no such order is necessary.

The motion to bifurcate the trial is therefore denied.