Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2022-00017670-CU-NP-NC, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 14, 2023

09/15/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00017670-CU-NP-NC GOGAL VS DENG [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Bifurcation, 07/31/2023

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Michael Gogal and Hildy Baumgartner-Gogal (collectively, 'Plaintiffs')'s motion to bifurcate trial is denied.

California Code of Civil Procedure ('CCP') §§ 598 and 1048(b) authorize bifurcation in the court's discretion. In relevant part, CCP § 598 provides that: 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.

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 598. In addition, CCP § 1048(b) allows the court to order a separate trial of any cause of action, any separate issue, or any number of causes of action or issues 'in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy .

. . .' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1048(b). 'As the cases explain, the objective of the bifurcation of the issues is avoidance of waste of time and money caused by the trial of issues which may be rendered moot . . . .' Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal. App. 3d 118, 135.

Plaintiffs seek an order bifurcating the trial in this matter into two phases. In the first phase, the parties would try all claims and damages incurred during Plaintiffs' tenancy (i.e., up to June 20, 2023), which would ostensibly cover the first through ninth causes of action in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (the 'FAC') as well as the second cause of action in Defendants/Cross-Complainants Xinhui Deng and Jianhua Wu (collectively, 'Defendants')'s Second Amended Cross-Complaint (the 'SACC'). In the second phase, the parties would try all claims and damages incurred after Plaintiffs' tenancy ended (i.e., after June 20, 2023), which would allegedly cover the eleventh cause of action set forth in the FAC and the first and third causes of action set forth in the SACC. For the following reasons, the court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that bifurcation is warranted under the circumstances.

To start, Plaintiffs' contention that Defendants cannot argue their alleged property damages as defenses to Plaintiffs' claims because Defendants failed to provide proper notice to Plaintiffs under CCP §§ 1161-1162 and California Civil Code § 1946.2(c) is not well taken. Such issue can only be adjudicated at trial or by way of a dispositive motion. Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that the court can Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3001990 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GOGAL VS DENG [IMAGED]  37-2022-00017670-CU-NP-NC make such a determination in the context of a motion to bifurcate.

Moreover, the court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that bifurcation will promote judicial economy, witness convenience, or the ends of justice, or that prejudice will be avoided. Plaintiffs' main contention is that, absent bifurcation, Defendants' property damage claims may improperly influence the jury's determination of Plaintiffs' tenancy claims. This is speculation on Plaintiffs' part and, regardless, any potential prejudice can be alleviated through the appropriate jury instructions. The court is confident that a jury will understand the parties' respective positions. Moreover, the court is not convinced that bifurcation will promote judicial economy or the ends of justice. Both the FAC and SACC arise from Plaintiffs' tenancy and the parties' lease agreement. Bifurcation will result in duplicative evidence and witness testimony. In the court's estimation, it will be far more efficient to try the matter in a single trial and, if/when necessary, the court can issue the appropriate rulings, including jury instructions, concurrent with or after the parties present their cases. The court respectfully disagrees with Plaintiffs that this approach will sow confusion amongst the jurors or otherwise lead to an unfair administration of justice.

In light of the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiffs' motion to bifurcate trial.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, September 15, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of September 15, 2023.

If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3001990