Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 23STCV18773, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV18773, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18773 Hearing Date: April 7, 2025 Dept: 14

Case Background

This is an action for violations of the FEHA, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual battery, and sexual assault. Plaintiff alleges that while she was employed as a waitress, her manager harassed and made inappropriate sexual advances toward her. The manager assaulted her at an event sponsored by their employer. Plaintiff resigned after the manager continued to make sexual advances after the assault.

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff Isabella Osorio filed her Complaint against Defendants Brinker International, Inc. (Chili’s) and Julian Ruiz.

On January 16, 2025, Defendant Chili’s filed its motion to bifurcate. Defendant Ruiz filed a joinder to the motion on the same day.

On March 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

On March 28, 2025, Chili’s filed a reply.

Instant Pleading

Defendants move to bifurcate trial of Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages and to exclude evidence of Defendants’ financial condition until the trier of fact determines Defendants are guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.

Decision

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

“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…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…The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 598, portions omitted.)

“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., section 1048(b).)

In trials where punitive damages are claimed, bifurcation is mandatory on defendant’s motion: No evidence of defendant's wealth (e.g., assets, income, financial condition, etc.) is admissible “until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finding the defendant guilty of malice, oppression or fraud in accordance with Section 3294” (requiring clear and convincing evidence). Civ. Code, section 3295(d); see CACI 3948, 3949; see also BAJI 14.72.1, 14.72.2. This avoids the risk that defendant's financial condition might taint the jury's determination of the underlying liability case and the issues of “oppression, fraud or malice.” (Raymark Industries, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 64, 67–68.)

Discussion

Here, Defendants move to bifurcate punitive damages from trial on the grounds that it is mandatory under Civ. Code, section 3295(d). Defendants also move to exclude evidence of financial condition until the trier of fact makes the requisite finding that Defendants are guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that trial will not be expedited if it is bifurcated, punitive damages are not confusing, and there is no prejudice to Defendants to try punitive damages. However, Defendants are correct that bifurcation of the issue of punitive damages is mandatory on Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s arguments do not address this rule. Therefore, the motion to bifurcate is GRANTED. The request to exclude evidence of financial condition until the trier of fact makes the required findings is likewise GRANTED.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is GRANTED.